of Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann Cost and Efficiency Reviewdttas.old.gov.ie/sites/default/files/publications... · 2 Dublin Bus & Bus Éireann Cost and Efficiency Review January 2009

Cost and Efficiency Review

of Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann

January 2009

1 Dublin Bus & Bus Éireann Cost and Efficiency Review January 2009

Contents

Executive summary .................................................................................................................................. 6

1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 23

2. Effectiveness and appropriateness of the current network of services ......................................... 35

3. Operational efficiency .................................................................................................................... 56

4. Issues affecting both companies ................................................................................................... 73

5. Recommendations ......................................................................................................................... 97

Appendix I ............................................................................................................................................ 103


Foreword

Scope and basis for review Deloitte & Touche (hereinafter ―Deloitte‖) together with our subcontractors, the TAS Partnership Ltd (TAS) and Colin Buchanan, are pleased to present our Report (―Report‖) on the cost and efficiency review of Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann to the Minister for Transport. This Report and any related advice we give has been prepared for the sole purpose of assisting and advising the Minister in accordance with our Consultancy Agreement dated 30 June 2008.

The information we have used to prepare this Report has been provided to us by a variety of sources and derived from our own research of publicly available sources. In some cases, commercially sensitive information was used to perform the analyses. Our procedures have not included verification work and do not constitute an audit in accordance with auditing standards. At all times the recommendations and conclusions made in this Review are those of Deloitte and we have not sought to seek validation of our views by those consulted as part of the Review.

This Report is for the attention of the Minister for Transport. The Report may not be relied upon, referred to, reproduced or quoted from, in whole or in part, for any other purpose than that set out in the Consultancy Agreement. Deloitte shall not under any circumstances whatsoever be under any liability to any party other than as set out in our Consultancy Agreement.

Background to the review Deloitte was appointed by the Department of Transport on 30 June 2008 to undertake a cost and efficiency review of Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann. This section sets out our Terms of Reference that accompany this review and summarises Deloitte‘s approach to undertaking the project. It also outlines the overall structure of this report.

Terms of reference The Terms of Reference for the review issued by the Department of Transport are summarised below. These Terms specify that the review should assess whether the resources currently available to Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann are used in the most effective and efficient way possible to deliver an optimum public transport service and more particularly to:

Assess the effectiveness and appropriateness of the network of services currently provided by Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann for public transport users and of their planning and management of the network including the criteria used for route selection and amendment, frequency setting and adjustment, service variations during weekday/weekend, extent of peak/off peak provision, integration with other public transport services etc.

Assess the operational efficiency of Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann with particular reference to resource utilisation (including bus scheduling and staff scheduling and rostering) and operational costs. This should include an examination of the utilisation of buses to determine whether the fleet is deployed in the most efficient and effective manner. The assessment should also examine the management of direct costs and overheads and of the issues (e.g. human resource, organisational etc), which might impact on the delivery of services to public transport users.

Identify any issues (e.g. human resource, organisational) adversely impacting on the efficiency, effectiveness and sustainability of service delivery, indicating whether these issues are within management control.

Make recommendations in relation to actions required to enhance efficiency, effectiveness and reliability of the delivery of public transport services. Each recommendation to be assessed in relation to its implications for the financial viability of the companies and the impact on the need for Exchequer support.


Our Terms of Reference exclude the commercial operations of Dublin Bus and the school bus operations of Bus Éireann.

Methodology Deloitte‘s approach to this review was to:

Undertake a substantial amount of desktop analysis and research including reviewing previous reports on the sector and assessing best practices internationally and benchmarking data.

Consult extensively with senior management in both companies covering:

Business Development

Marketing

Engineering

Human Resources

Financial

Operations

Hold stakeholder meetings with:

Michael Philips, Director of Traffic, Dublin City Council.

Owen Keegan, City Manager, Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council.

John Henry, Chief Executive, Dublin Transportation Office.

Ciaran De Burca, Quality Bus Network Project Office, Dublin City Council.

John Weafer, Bus Route Licensing Division, Department of Transport.

Use electronic ticketing information to carry out in-depth analysis of service performance and reliability indicators. Ticketing information was obtained covering each route operated by the case study garages over two 4 week periods (November 2007 and April 2008). The information supplied included a record of every passenger journey including;

Ticket type and passenger category

Service

Area of ticket purchase (stage location)

Date and time of ticket purchase

Fare paid

Use scheduling information (for routes, buses and drivers) to analyse in detail how resources at the companies are deployed.

We focused on a number of case study garages in order to analyse the operations of each company in detail.

For Dublin Bus, we examined two contrasting garages:

Harristown – the newest garage for Dublin Bus, opened in October 2004.

Donnybrook – the largest of the long established garages.

For Bus Éireann, we chose three garages serving different markets:

Broadstone (Dublin) – commuter and expressway services.

Cork – city, stage carriage and expressway services.

Dundalk –local and stage carriage services.


Data review

Scheduling analysis consisted of examining the time scheduled for buses and drivers operating in passenger service as well as time spent undertaking other activities such as ‗out of service‘ running and time spent in the garage.

We analysed ticket data to determine:

Passenger levels on each route by time of day.

Usage of individual ticket types and average duration of ticket transactions.

Relationship of capacity to demand.

Variation in running times by time of day.

We reviewed the following:

Approach to network design.

Approach to timetable design.

Engineering, maintenance and fleet data.

Marketing and customer information data.

We benchmarked key performance indicators for both companies against comparable operators in the UK and elsewhere in Europe.

At the request of Dublin Bus, we were also asked to carry out as an additional task, a high level conceptual redesign of a pilot corridor (Finglas) to further test potential efficiencies.

Diagram A Methodology


Structure of report This report is structured into five parts with an Appendix.

Part I – Introduction

Part 1 sets out an overview of the Irish Bus industry. It also describes the activities of Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann and the various issues facing the companies. Finally, it highlights the financial context of both companies against which this review has been undertaken.

Part II – Assessment of the effectiveness and appropriateness of the network of services currently provided by both companies

Part II assesses the effectiveness and appropriateness of the network of services currently provided by Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann. The analysis includes an assessment of the planning and management of the networks operated by each company including the criteria used for route selection and amendment, frequency setting and adjustment, service variations during weekday and weekend, the extent of peak/off peak provision and the extent to which integration with other public transport services exist. References are made to international best practice. A number of areas are discussed where the potential exists to improve the current set of networks and services operated by Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann.

Part III – Assessment of the operational efficiency of both companies

Part III assesses the operational efficiency of Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann based upon the networks and services currently operated by the companies. Our assessment covers resource utilisation (including bus scheduling and staff scheduling and rostering) and operational costs. It includes an examination of the utilisation of buses to determine whether the fleet is deployed in the most efficient and effective manner. The assessment also examines the management of direct costs and overheads and of the issues (e.g. human resource, organisational etc), which impact on the delivery of services to public transport users

Part IV – Issues adversely impacting on the efficiency, effectiveness and sustainability of service delivery

Part IV identifies the issues adversely impacting on the efficiency, effectiveness and sustainability of service delivery. It addresses congestion, real time passenger information, ticketing and fare structures, capacity and operating hours, licensing, and fleet management.

Part V – Conclusions and implementation

Part V summarises our conclusions and lists a number of recommendations to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of operations at Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann. Finally, we set out details of the process by which recommendations contained in this report could be implemented.


Executive summary

This report sets out the findings of the cost and efficiency review of Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann undertaken by Deloitte, together with our sub-contractors TAS and Colin Buchanan, at the request of the Department of Transport. The review commenced in June 2008 and was completed in January 2009.

Benchmarking of the cost base of each company indicates that they are generally as efficient as comparable organisations. We have, however, identified a number of areas where potential exists to improve the effectiveness of current operations, with consequential financial benefits.

Our report recommends a series of measures primarily aimed at creating a more effective and appropriate bus network for Dublin combined with a range of operational improvements for both Dublin and Provincial services. Our proposed measures build on the considerable investments made to date in bus fleets and related infrastructure and take into account the deteriorating financial position of both companies.

Introduction

The bus sector in Ireland

Since the early 1990s, each National Development Plan (NDP) for economic and social development and more recently Transport 21, has provided funding for investment in transport infrastructure which has included funding for fleet expansion at both Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann. The Public Sector Obligation Payment (PSO) has also been increasing on an annual basis in recent years. Future investment plans foresee the bus as being the principal provider of passenger transport services in Dublin and throughout Ireland.

The 2006 Census of Population found that the overall number of bus users increased by 7% since the previous census in 2002. However, over the same period the number of persons driving to work by car, lorry or van increased by 22%. The share of public transport by bus fell from 6.7% in 2002 to 6.1% in 2006.

The following are a number of characteristics specific to the bus market in Ireland:

Recent strong economic and population growth has led to a general increase in transport demand and longer commuter journeys;

There were almost 8,500 large public services vehicles registered in the State in 2007. Of this almost 1,200 were registered to Dublin Bus and 700 to Bus Éireann;

A major investment programme in Quality Bus Corridors (QBC), especially in Dublin, has improved bus journey times, relative to that of the car but traffic congestion remains a problem in key locations;

A major investment in intercity motorways has led to opportunities and challenges for Bus Éireann;

There has been significant recent capital investment by the State in PSO fleet replacement and expansion for Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann. The average age of the fleet operated by Dublin Bus is 6 years. The average age of the fleet is similar in Bus Éireann (excluding schools fleet);

PSO current funding for Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann is relatively low when compared to comparable operations in other countries in Europe;

Increases in fuel prices, combined with falling passenger numbers, have put significant financial pressures on both companies.


Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann

Dublin Bus is a commercial Semi State Body, a subsidiary company of Córas Iompair Éireann (CIE) . Dublin Bus operates a comprehensive network of services in the Greater Dublin Area (GDA) serving a population of approximately 1.2 million people. This population is projected to grow to 1.5 million by 2020. It operates a PSO fleet of 1,148 buses on more than 200 routes. As the principal provider of public bus services in the region, it currently carries over 70% of public transport passengers in the city centre area. Dublin Bus carried almost 148 million passengers in 2007.

Bus Éireann is also a commercial Semi State body within the CIE Group. Bus Éireann operates commercial, schools transport and public services activities outside the city and county of Dublin, serving a population of over 3 million people. This population is projected to grow to over 3.6 million by 2020. Bus Éireann operates a Public Service Obligation (PSO) fleet of over 450 buses on a variety of rural, city, suburban and town services. Bus Éireann also operates commercial services, principally the Expressway service. School services are operated under contract with the Department of Education and Science on a cost recovery basis. Bus Éireann carried 50.2 million passengers in 2007 (95.7 million when school numbers are included).

Passenger numbers Both companies forecast a fall in passenger numbers in 2008 and 2009 due to the general economic slowdown.

Dublin Bus passenger analysis

Dublin Bus has grown passenger numbers by almost 6% during the period 2001-2007. Passenger numbers peaked in 2003/4 at 149 million passengers. A 3% fall in passenger numbers in 2005 coincided with the introduction of Luas services. Passenger numbers for 2008 are predicted by Dublin Bus to fall by approximately 3% and a further 5% in 2009 due to the general economic downturn.

Figure A: Dublin Bus passenger numbers

Source: Dublin Bus actual 2001 – 2007 and management forecasts 2008 and 2009

Bus Éireann passenger analysis

Bus Éireann has grown passenger numbers by almost 15% during the period 2001-2007. Passenger numbers reached 50.2 million in 2007. Passenger numbers for 2008 are predicted by Bus Éireann to fall by approximately 2% and a further 4% in 2009 due to the general economic downturn.


Figure B: Bus Éireann: passenger numbers

Source: Bus Éireann: actual 2001 – 2007 and management forecasts 2008 and 2009

Financial review Up to 2007, both companies retained modest annual profits, net of PSO payments. The companies anticipate significant losses in 2008 and 2009 as a result of falling passenger numbers and increased costs, especially in the areas of fuel and wages.

Financial forecasts

Dublin Bus Bus Éireann

Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast

2008 2009 2008 2009

€m €m €m €m

Gross loss (99.7) (115.8) (46.2) (66.5)

PSO 85.8 85.2 36.9 41.5

Operating loss (13.9) (30.6) (9.3) (28.5)

Retained deficit (9.9) (31.5) (10.3) (29.5)

Table 1: Profit and loss extracts

Source: Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann management forecasts 2008 and 2009


Figure C: Dublin Bus/Bus Éireann retained surplus and PSO

Source: Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann: audited accounts 2004 – 2007 and management forecasts 2008 and 2009


If remedial action is not taken, the projected rate of losses at both companies will result in a net asset deficit at each company in the near future.

Public Sector Obligation (PSO)

Government PSO payments including capital payments to both companies are relatively low.

In 2007, Dublin Bus received €80.1m operational subvention to cover its PSO. Bus Éireann received €36.6m operational subvention to cover its services.

Operational subvention is designed to meet the shortfall between the cost of operating PSO services and the revenue generated from such services. In recent years the subvention PSO payments have been increasing at a rate of c.5% per annum with further increases applying where new services have been introduced.

The Dublin Bus PSO payment in 2007 equated to c.29% of total revenue. Grants and subsidies to other comparable bus operations outside Ireland vary greatly. In Europe, levels of operational subvention are generally higher (% of revenue):

68% in Brussels

57% in Zurich

62% in Amsterdam

79% in Lyon

38.5% in London (regulated, excluding network management costs)

The Bus Éireann PSO payment in 2007 equated to c.12% of total revenue. In addition Bus Éireann has been using its own resources, generated from its commercial services, to subsidise PSO services. In 2007 the retained surplus from commercial and school transport amounted to €8m. It is more difficult to identify comparable operators for Bus Éireann given their mix of services. When compared to the PSO received by the national operators in the Netherlands, Belgium and Switzerland, the subsidy received by Bus Éireann is low:

Connexxion (Netherlands): Subsidy as percentage of revenue; 49%

Car Postal/Post Auto (Switzerland): Subsidy as percentage of revenue; 51%

TEC (Walloon region, Belgium): Subsidy as percentage of revenue; 78%

PSO payments in 2008 are forecast by management to be €85.8m for Dublin Bus and €36.9m for Bus Éireann.

In addition to the annual PSO payment, Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann receive capital grants to partially fund the purchase of buses for PSO services or the upgrading of infrastructure for PSO services. These capital grants have the effect of lowering the annual PSO compensation requirement of the companies. This is due to the fact that the grant payments for buses and facilities are amortised on the same basis as assets are depreciated. Without the capital grants, the net depreciation charge for the companies would be higher.

In 2007, the amortised capital subvention amounted to €13.4m and €5.9m for Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann respectively. This compares to an operational PSO payment of €80.1m and €36.6m for Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann respectively.


Effectiveness and appropriateness of the current

network of services Network design and scheduling of drivers and buses should be led by the requirements of the passenger. For the public transport user, services should be both integrated and simple to understand. Timetable design should reflect the level of demand at different times of the day, but timings should also be attractive to the passenger. Clockface intervals are a key feature of best practice timetable design, especially for low frequency routes. Bus arrival times on high frequency routes should be evenly spaced both for passenger convenience and to even out the number of passengers travelling on each bus.

Dublin Bus network

Dublin Bus operates a comprehensive network which covering towns as far north as Balbriggan, as far west as Kilcock, and as far south as Newtownmountkennedy.

In recent years a major investment programme has been carried out to develop QBCs and this has achieved improvements in journey times and customer service on several key corridors. In addition, high quality bus shelters have been provided along many bus routes.

With an increasing population expected in the GDA over the coming years and changing land use patterns, the National Development Plan (2007 to 2013) foresees the need for a transformation in the public transport network in the GDA. The NDP sets out the projects necessary to achieve this e.g. Metro North, Metro West, Luas network extension. A significant expansion of the bus fleet and increased bus priority also forms part of the plan.

The construction phase of a number of Transport 21 projects will have a significant impact on the city centre resulting in street closures and traffic disruption over the coming years.

The current bus network has not been significantly redesigned for many years. This is primarily due to a perception that any changes to the existing network will meet public resistance. The result is that the Dublin Bus network has become, in our opinion, overly complex with a significant amount of service duplication.

There is an opportunity to create a simplified bus network offering improved services with improved cost efficiency.

We have reviewed the current network and set of services operated by Dublin Bus. We have identified a number of areas where the potential to make improvements exists:

A. Complexity of network and services

B. Coordination of services along core corridors

C. Instances of bus ‗bunching‘

D. Direct routing of services

E. Timetable design

F. Marketing and information provision

G. Achieving value for money from service provision



Examples have been identified where the current network is overly complex and can act as a barrier to use:

A significant number of bus routes have multiple variations (e.g. 15, 15A, 15B, 15E, 15F, 15X and 40, 40A, 40B, 40C, 40D).

Many corridors are served by various route numbers (e.g. Rathmines: 14, 14A, 15, 15A, 15B, 15E, 15F, 18, 65, 65B, 74, 74A, 83, 128, 142).

Some similar route numbers serve different areas (e.g. 51A, 51B) while others have significantly different frequencies (e.g. Route 128 and 129).

Our analysis has indicated that a simplified network will provide the majority of existing customers with an easier to use and more regular bus service.


Our analysis has shown that several areas are served by multiple and duplicated routes. Where services share a significant portion of a route with other bus services, the timetables are not necessarily coordinated. This means that the service level along the common route is not as good as it could be, given the resources deployed.

C. Instances of bus „bunching‟

While congestion is a major cause of ―bunching‖ of buses, it is possible to minimise this by;

Ensuring departures on routes are set at even headways.

Introducing intermediate times for services.

The figure below graphically shows an example of scheduled terminus departures from the city centre for routes 40/A/B/C/D (not including Route 140) which serve the Finglas corridor, together with actual waiting times along the route.

Route 40/A/B/C/D Scheduled Terminus Departures from City Centre

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

06:4

0

07:0

5

07:2

0

07:3

5

07:4

5

08:0

0

08:1

5

08:3

5

08:5

0

09:0

5

09:2

0

09:3

5

09:5

5

10:1

0

10:3

5

10:5

0

11:2

0

11:4

5

12:1

0

12:3

5

13:0

0

13:2

0

13:4

0

13:5

5

14:1

5

14:3

5

15:0

0

15:2

0

15:4

0

16:0

0

16:1

5

16:3

5

16:5

5

17:0

5

17:2

0

17:4

0

17:5

5

18:1

0

18:3

0

18:4

5

19:0

5

19:3

5

19:5

5

20:3

5

21:0

5

21:2

5

22:0

0

22:3

0

23:0

0

23:3

0

Inte

rval Betw

een D

epart

ure

s (

min

s)

Scheduled Interval

Actual Frequency

Figure D: Example of scheduled terminus departures from city centre for Routes 40/A/B/C/D

Source: Dublin Bus ticketing data

Figure D demonstrates how the timetable interval between departures at the city centre terminus, though commonly at 5 minutes, fluctuates between 0 and 10 minutes for most of the day. We also show the actual frequency experienced by customers along the route which is below that which the resources operating along the route could potentially offer. The difference is due to buses bunching and is explained in further detail in our report.


A coordinated timetable could deliver even headways and, when combined with intermediate times, the average waiting time could be reduced significantly.


The strong demand for recently introduced routes such as the 128, 140 and 151 demonstrate the attractiveness of services offering direct routings, simple even headway timetables and cross city options.

A lack of bus street stands in the city centre, particularly during the construction of Transport 21 projects, means fewer buses will be able to terminate in the city centre. However the reliability of cross city services can be poor due to congestion. To minimise reliability issues, cross city services should operate along routes where there are high levels of bus priority and this should be addressed as soon as possible.

E. Timetable design

A review of the services operated out of the case study garages identified a number of instances where operational priorities have resulted in timetabled services operating in a manner that leads to customer service issues. It is important that timetables are designed in a user friendly format. Ideally the following features should exist for key routes:

Clockface departures or high frequency headways (e.g. ―every 6 mins‖).

Intermediate timing points.

Deviations from the core service at certain times of the day should be kept to a minimum.

Fonts and text size at bus stops should be easily readable in diminished lighting.


Both companies make a considerable investment in marketing and information provision. Our report highlights several important sources of information which ought to be provided to the customer:

Bus stop information

Journey planners and Network maps

Our recommendations regarding network and service simplification will make it easier to market and explain services to customers.

We also recommend actual intermediate departure times be published at bus stops and, where possible, Real-Time Passenger Information be provided as soon as possible.

G. Achieve enhanced value for money from service provision

A simplified network of services with reduced variations and duplication will be less expensive to operate. Our analysis of the Finglas case study corridor of services indicated that a more efficient service could be provided for a net cost saving of up to 17% (saving up to €2.1m). Our conceptual design means the majority of customers will benefit from a simplified and more reliable service. In our report we analyse a number of options based on our views and the views of the company. In every scenario considered, the results show a positive financial benefit for the company.

The case study corridor is one of fourteen main radial corridors operated by Dublin Bus. In recent years, a number of these corridors have benefited from service capacity increases, through the introduction of new routes. However new routes have been introduced without significant adjustments to the existing network or set of services.

We recommend that a thorough review of the whole network, particularly along key corridors, be undertaken so that the potential savings which the Finglas corridor case study has highlighted can be identified across the network and the consequential financial savings made.


Bus Éireann network

Bus Éireann operate a number of distinct services:

City and town service

Commuter services

Stage carriage services

Rural services

Expressway services

The network is operated on an integrated basis, providing services for people to travel from any one point on its network to another. This is facilitated through:

Integrated timetables

Interchange points

Journey planner

Integrated ticketing / through fares

Given the comprehensive and integrated nature of services being offered to the public, we have found Bus Éireann‘s network to be as efficient as its peers. It will not be possible to make major cost savings on the Bus Éireann network without reducing services. If service rationalisation is implemented, in the context of the current financial situation facing the company, it will be important to ensure that the integrated nature of the network is maintained as far as is practical.

Customer information

We believe that improvements could be made in customer information, particularly at bus stops.

City services should display intermediate times, to assist both drivers and customers.

In many cases, bus stops do not indicate the route number of buses serving the stop.

In Dublin City, it is rare for Bus Éireann route information to be available at stops that are also designed to serve Dublin Bus routes.


Operational efficiency In 2007, wages and fuel costs made up over 70% of total operational costs for both companies. This is similar to the industry average in the UK. Fuel costs are, to a large extent, outside the control of the companies. The CIE Group has a hedging policy for their fuel requirements, generally covering their requirements for one to two years in advance. Direct wage costs are a factor of the number of buses operated and the levels of pay and conditions. As pay rates are subject to national pay agreements, they are largely outside the control of management. Therefore, overall costs can primarily be controlled only by seeking efficiencies in operating the network of services.

Engineering costs, including wages, are broadly similar to peer group operations. Having a relatively young fleet keeps engineering costs low and improves service reliability, accessibility and customer experience. The Companies are investigating the feasibility of sub contracting certain elements of their engineering functions. They are also exploring the feasibility of night maintenance.

Our benchmarking analysis indicates that fleet management is in line with industry norms. A 10-12% spare margin is typical (Dublin Bus 11%).

For both companies, administration and ―back office‖ expenses are in line with benchmarks. Various cost reduction measures have been completed by the companies or are underway. The companies highlighted recent successes in reducing the costs of third party claims through CIE Group shared services. The companies should explore all opportunities to drive cost savings through greater use of information technology and shared services in areas such as human resources, finance and procurement.

Dublin Bus

Wages 68% - € 193.7m Fuel 7% - € 19.3m

Other 20% - € 56.9m Depreciation 6% - € 16.9m

Bus Éireann

Wages 63%- € 130.0m Fuel 8% - € 15.8m

Other 23% - € 47.6m Depreciation 7%- € 13.9m

Figure E: Dublin Bus/Bus Éireann operating costs in 2007

Source: Dublin Bus/Bus Éireann audited accounts 2007

Dublin Bus operational efficiency

The Dublin Bus fleet increased by 200 buses in 1999/2000. These buses were part funded by EU grants and the Exchequer. They were designated to meet additional peak demand along new QBCs. The number of vehicles in the fleet did not change significantly again until the delivery of an additional 20 vehicles in late 2005 and a further 100 vehicles in autumn 2006.

Since 2000, fleet capacity, as opposed to fleet size has increased by almost 25%. This additional capacity has been provided through a mixture of additional buses and the replacement of older vehicles with larger ones. The increase in fleet capacity has not led to an equivalent increase in passenger numbers.


Figure F: Dublin Bus capacity growth and passenger growth

Source: Dublin Bus management information

Our analysis shows that the current fleet size is adequate to service current demand. We favour optimising the existing network and extracting full value from the existing fleet before considering future fleet expansion. The need for fleet expansion should be reviewed in the future in light of changing external circumstances and internal improvements in efficiency. Examples of external factors are:

The traffic management plan for Transport 21 city centre Metro and Luas construction may require significant increase in bus modal share.

Traffic or demand management plans introduced may offer a ‗step change‘ in bus priority thus increasing demand (e.g. bus gate at College Green or introduction of road user charging).

We found that the scheduling of buses and drivers is generally efficient when compared with international benchmarks. However on occasion, scheduling efficiency is achieved at the expense of meaningful services to the customer.

Our review highlights a number of instances where a focus on scheduling efficiency by the Company has led to weakness in service provision, for example;

Timetables are designed to ensure maximum driver efficiency at the expense of regular, even headway and departures.

Examples of ‗out of service‘ running to facilitate driver breaks.

Examples of routes operating to a garage without apparent customer demand.

While some of our recommendations for redesigning the schedule may result in a small reduction in scheduling efficiency, this will be outweighed by benefits to the customer and thus potentially offer higher revenue yields.

Meeting peak demand cost effectively is a significant challenge for all city bus services and Dublin is no different. Passenger numbers between 08:00 and 09:00 on a weekday can be more than double those travelling in the middle of the day.

Our ticket data analysis demonstrates that the current level of peak provision in Dublin is justified by passenger demand. There is substantial additional demand, especially in the morning that justifies peak only driver duties. Whilst operating buses for 4-6 hours per day may seem inefficient, expanding operating hours increases direct costs (mainly wages and fuel which account for the majority of operating costs) to a level which is often higher than the revenue generated from additional journeys provided outside the core peak hours. Dublin Bus should explore the possibility of subcontracting services, especially at peak times, as a means to address peak demand in the most cost efficient manner possible.


0

20

40

60

80

100

120

06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Hour

Passenger

Index (

0800=

100)

Donnybrook

Harristown

Figure G: Dublin Bus Passenger index; numbers through the day


Currently the majority of buses used to provide additional peak services are based in Harristown garage due to a historic lack of space at more conveniently located garages.

In the context of a general redesign of services, we believe that the cost of peak service provision can be reduced through relocating certain buses from Harristown to garages closer to their route and integrating peak driver schedules with general all day schedules. This can reduce the early curtailment of peak time services in the evening due to current scheduling

A number of work practices exist at Dublin Bus that may restrict the ability of the company to make changes in a timely manner. The precedent of disturbance payments may increase the associated cost of network redesign.

Bus Éireann operational efficiency

We found scheduling of buses and drivers to be efficient when the nature of each service was taken into account. In most cases, schedules were designed to ensure even headway and clockface departures on services.

We identified the potential for some relatively minor scheduling efficiencies as a result of our detailed analysis of certain routes.

In light of the deteriorating financial situation facing the company, Bus Éireann will need to assess a number of strategic opportunities. Bus Éireann should further explore opportunities to combine dedicated services from multiple organisations (schools, Rural Transport Programme, conventional bus services, HSE services etc.). Other areas to consider are listed below.

Sub-contracting

Bus Éireann uses sub-contracting to cover PVRs and maintain timetables where congestion has caused delays to services. In the face of falling passenger numbers, Bus Éireann intend reducing the current level of sub-contracting.

There is potential for alternative roles for sub-contracting within the main network, whereby entire services are contracted out to smaller operators who may be able to operate at a lower cost than a large operator such as Bus Éireann. Key concerns for Bus Éireann in expanding sub-contracting are


safety standards and the need for an agreed framework for operating and maintenance practices. We recommend that Bus Éireann identify clusters of routes on a rolling basis and seek private sector tenders to operate these routes. These can then be assessed against an internal benchmark, to see if sub-contracting can reduce costs.

Balance between express and stopping services

Bus Éireann, in providing an integrated network, also aims to ensure that services are attractive to the majority of passengers. We recommend that the company carries out detailed cost benefit analyses of services along each corridor to determine the best option e.g. direct services, stopping services or hybrid services.

Capacity issues

We have identified a number of instances where more than one bus is used to meet demand for a particular timetabled departure. Such demand could be met in some cases by the use of larger vehicles, thereby reducing the number of drivers required.

Bus Éireann has highlighted a concern that double deck buses and coaches are currently subject to a statutory speed restriction which they believe significantly restricts their efficient operation. Given the recent increase in the number of double deck coaches operated by the Company, we recommended that a decision on the issue of speed restrictions is made at the earliest opportunity.


Issues affecting both companies

Reliability of network

Public transport customer surveys have consistently rated reliability/punctuality as an important choice factor for users. Dublin Bus benefits from QBCs but still suffers from serious traffic congestion, especially in the city centre.

In Dublin, our ticketing analysis has demonstrated that average wait times on a number of routes are significantly in excess of the timetabled average wait time. Figure H and I cover Route 4 southbound. O‘Connell Street can be seen to be the source of major congestion.

0

5

10

15

20

25

Bally

mun R

oad (S

antry

Avenue)

Bally

mun R

d. (G

lasnevin

Ave.)

Bally

mun R

oad (T

he R

ise

)

Bota

nic

Avenue.

Ha

rt's C

orn

er

Phib

sboro

Shoppin

gC

entre

Bro

adsto

ne

Ble

ssin

gto

n S

t.

O'C

onnell S

treet

Merrio

n S

quare

Mount S

t. (Ho

lles S

t.)

No

rthum

berla

nd

Rd

.(Ha

ddin

gto

n R

d

Pem

bro

ke R

oad

Stages

Journ

ey T

ime b

etw

een s

tages (M

inute

s)

Run mean (min)

Best Run

Worst Run

Figure H: Service 4 to Blackrock – Morning peak


0

5

10

15

20

25

Bally

mun R

oad (S

antry

Avenue)

Bally

mun R

d. (G

lasnevin

Ave.)

Bally

mun R

oad (T

he R

ise)

Bota

nic

Avenue.

Hart's

Corn

er

Phib

sboro

Shoppin

gC

entre

Bro

adsto

ne

Ble

ssin

gto

n S

t.

O'C

onnell S

treet

Merrio

n S

quare

Mount S

t. (Holle

s S

t.)

North

um

berla

nd

Rd.(H

addin

gto

n R

d

Pem

bro

ke R

oad

Stages

Avera

ge W

aitin

g T

imes

AM Peak Wait Inter Peak Wait

PM Peak Wait Scheduled Wait

Figure I: Route 4 to Blackrock average wait time (main section)

Source: Dublin bus ticketing data


These figures demonstrate the variability of journey times, particularly in the city centre and the impact on average waiting times for passengers. In the case of Route 4, the average wait times are considerably larger than they should be according to the timetable. The average wait-time deteriorates for passengers wishing to board the service south of O‘Connell Street due to the journey time variability on O‘Connell Street.

The most recent Dublin Transportation Office Quality Bus Corridor Monitoring Report, undertaken in November 2007, highlights QBC routes where journey times along certain city centre sections of route are below walking pace. The modal share of bus passengers crossing the Canal Cordon in Dublin on QBC corridors had increased by 11,126 passengers (36%) from 1997 to 2007

Clearly QBCs have generally improved journey times and increased the number of people travelling by bus. However, congestion remains an issue, particularly in the city centre.

Punctuality and reliability monitoring is a useful tool for management in determining which routes need bus priority measures, revised schedules and additional attention from roadside supervisors.

Dublin Bus uses ‗lost mileage‘ data to assess the reliability of services. However, the basis upon which this data is recorded could be improved. Punctuality is measured with reference to termini departures times. We believe the current existing location of monitoring (at termini) and the typical small sample size used by the company means that the resulting data is of limited use as a management tool.

Automatic Vehicle Location systems (AVL) will provide a comprehensive view of punctuality across each network. In the meantime, an intensification of manual observations should be considered. The rollout of AVL systems will be complete for Bus Éireann in 2009 and Dublin Bus in 2010.

Congestion

Congestion is a significant issue for both companies. Congestion restricts the efficient operations of the companies and increases their respective cost bases. While congestion remains, the companies have a number of options to ensure operations remain as reliable as possible which we set out in our report.

In addition to QBCs in Dublin, further priority measures are planned. These include linking AVL information to the traffic light management system (SCATS) in Dublin to provide further priority to buses. This will help improve reliability of bus journey times. We understand from our consultations with the Dublin Transport Office (DTO) that their research indicates that the time spent by buses stopped at traffic signals can form a significant portion of overall journey times.

Supply side measures, as set out in this report, will not of themselves move sufficient people out of cars and on to public transport to maximise revenues and minimise required PSO for the bus service. Currently Dublin City Council are proposing a number of demand management measures including increasing parking charges in the city centre and closing or re-routing a significant number of roads pre and post the construction of Transport 21 projects.

More radical demand management should be considered. When London introduced congestion charging into the city centre it saw a 30% reduction in congestion. A similar reduction in congestion in Dublin would improve the efficiency of both companies and reduce their costs. A congestion charge would also change the relative attractiveness of the bus versus the private car. This could drive a significant increase in passengers and revenues to the companies. All demand management measures such as road user pricing should be investigated in detail to determine the feasibility of reducing congestion, improving bus speeds and moving more people on to public transport.

Ticketing and fare structure

The standard cash fares for both companies are currently approved by the Minister for Transport. Prepaid ticket prices do not require ministerial approval. An indirect result is that discounts for prepaid tickets relative to cash tickets are less than in many other cities. As a result cash paying passengers make up the majority of fares for each company, resulting in cash handling costs and increased dwell times at bus stops.


In London, on board cash fare purchases make up less than 2% of all transactions. Overall dwell times in Dublin are higher as a result of the predominance of cash fares.

We recommend a progressive refocusing of the fare structure which aims to increase single fares at a higher rate than the discounted tickets, making the latter more attractive to users and encouraging people to transfer onto pre-paid or longer duration tickets. This would reduce boarding times and engender loyalty to public transport amongst users. This may require full regulation or deregulation of fares. The phased introduction in 2009 of a Smart Card Integrated Ticketing system, with electronic purse capability, will significantly assist in implementing such a move.

The introduction of ‗on street‘ ticket vending machines at key locations, such as exist at Luas stops, will further reduce dwell times.

While dwell times are not as relevant for medium to long distance coach services, we believe a move away from cash fares will benefit Bus Éireann city and town services in a manner similar to that described for Dublin Bus.

Real Time Passenger Information (RTPI)

The companies are currently rolling out AVL. The projects, funded by the Exchequer, should be complete in 2009 for Bus Éireann and 2010 for Dublin Bus. The systems will provide the location of every bus in the respective fleets in real time. The AVL systems provide the platform on which a RTPI system can be implemented.

RTPI can provide up-to-date information to customers on actual bus arrival and departure times (as currently provided at LUAS stops). This information can be made available on electronic displays at bus stops, in addition to mobile phone and other mobile devices and on the internet. We believe that RTPI is an important feature of a customer orientated bus service. For a relatively small capital investment, significant improvements can be made to the customer experience. We recommend that this project be prioritised and that any regulatory obstacles are overcome at an early date.

Licensing

The Road Transport Act, 1932 as amended, is the primary legislation governing the provision of passenger services by private bus operators, whilst a separate authorisation regime applies to Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann.

The current system is reactive rather than proactive when it comes to granting licences. Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann are concerned that the current licensing regime does not take into account the impact of granting a licence to a private operator on their overall obligations to operate comprehensive PSO networks. They believe a clearer policy is required to avoid ―cherry picking‖ of profitable routes by private operators.

The current licensing regime will be replaced in the proposed Public Transport Regulation Bill offering a more coherent approach to the regulation of the bus market.

Cost benefit analysis

We believe there is potential for both companies to improve their cost benefit analysis appraisal.

The nature of Bus Éireann‘s rural and intercity routes are such that there are relatively few permutations to consider during route planning; passengers need to travel at defined times, and there is often only one effective route between the locations being served.

For Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann‘s city routes, the higher density of passenger demand and available routes means that there are more choices to consider in terms of route planning. For example, planners need to consider whether to provide a larger number of direct links at lower frequencies or a smaller number of higher frequency services which require passengers to interchange. There is also the consideration of how to allocate resources between the competing demands of service frequency, network coverage and hours of operation.


We recommend that the companies adopt a system where benefits are defined in terms of time savings for passengers. This allows walking distances, waiting times, journey times and unpredictability (in terms of excess wait times) to be assessed on a like-for-like basis. Costs, meanwhile, should take into account not just the resources required but the potential revenue generation of a service change along with any abstraction from parallel services.

Summary recommendations

Dublin Bus recommendations

We recommend the development of a simpler and more efficient network with the following key principles:

Redesign network based on most recent patterns of demand/demographics.

Simplify the network and reduce the number of variations of bus routes.

Eliminate unnecessary duplication of services, maximising the return from deployed services.

Create even headways between departures and introduce intermediate running times to improve reliability and reduce the potential for ―bunching‖ of buses.

Provide additional direct routes into and out of the city/key places of employment/key retail centres.

Develop and market easy to understand routes and timetables.

Achieve enhanced Value for Money from service provisions.

We recommend a number of actions to improve scheduling efficiency and effectiveness:

Redeploy ―Peak only‖ buses from Harristown (in context of network redesign).

Introduce intermediate timing points along routes.

Eliminate ‗out of service‘ running to facilitate driver breaks.

Eliminate routes operating to garages with no apparent customer demand.

The above programme of work represents fundamental change for the company. It should be treated as a major change and transformation programme. The correct sponsorship and resources will be required if this programme is to be successful.

These changes need to be made in a coordinated way and with the needs of the customer at the centre. It is an integrated set of recommendations. An ad hoc approach to picking certain elements and ignoring others is likely to be less successful.

Given the immediate financial difficulties facing the company, Dublin Bus is progressing with cost reduction initiatives. Our detailed analysis of the Finglas Corridor indicates that significant cost savings can be achieved following a strategic redesign of services across the whole network that enhances services for the majority of customers. It will take longer, and require modest investment to make such strategic changes, but in the long term these will yield better results and ultimately strengthen the financial state of the company.

Bus Éireann recommendations

The scope for significant cost savings in Bus Éireann is limited as the current network design and schedules are largely efficient.

Given the immediate financial difficulties facing the company, Bus Éireann is also progressing with a cost reduction programme. It is likely that some service reduction will be required to return the company to financial stability. Any service rationalisation should be carefully planned to ensure the entire integrated network is not undermined.


General recommendations

In addition to the specific comments set out above, we recommend the following:

Provide better customer information at bus stops and through the rollout of the RTPI system.

Accelerate bus priority programme and continue to eliminate ―pinch points‖. We support the introduction of the ―Bus Gate‖ proposal at College Green.

Conduct a feasibility study into all demand management measures – including road user pricing.

Maintain current replacement bus programme at both companies.

Increase the move to cashless transactions – building on Smart Card Integrated Ticketing and making changes to the regulation of cash versus non-cash fares.

Implement changes to the licensing regime and process.

Provide greater clarity around PSO objectives.

Our recommendations do not call for major capital investments. Rather we are recommending strategies to optimise the use of the major investments already made or underway.

Implementation

The implementation of a full redesign of the Dublin Bus network and the other recommendations contained in this report will be a complex and challenging task which will involve many stakeholders – customers, staff, local authorities, key public agencies and private sector organisations.

Below we set out some key guidelines:

Obtain strong commitment from Government and company management.

Develop a comprehensive list of stakeholders, assess their specific needs, issues and concerns.

Communicate appropriately, frequently and with accountability.

Allocate sufficient expertise and resources to do the work properly.

Establish and maintain a process by which change can be implemented.

Assess risk and mitigate appropriately.

We recommend that these changes be approached as a strategic programme of work and that suitable leadership, expertise and resources be assembled from the start.

Rollout of actual changes can be approached on a phased or incremental basis. This has the benefit of allowing the new design principles to be tried out on a pilot basis first so that customer reaction can be gauged and built into subsequent rollouts. We suggest the following phases:

Phase 1: Focus on assembling the team, planning the programme of work and initial consultations

Phase 2: Design and implement a Pilot

Phase 3 onwards: Design and rollout out new services to remaining corridors

We estimate the initial Phases 1 and 2 could be set up and implemented in a 6 month timeframe with the subsequent rollouts over an 18-24 month timeframe.


1. Introduction

The bus sector in Ireland

The bus sector in Dublin has experienced growth over the past decade although this has reversed recently due to the economic downturn. Since the early 1990‘s each National Development Plan for economic and social development, and more recently Transport 21, has provided investment in transport infrastructure which has included funding for fleet expansion at both Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann. The PSO has been increasing on an annual basis in recent years. Future investment plans foresee the bus as being the principal provider of passenger transport services in Dublin and all through Ireland.

The 2006 Census of Population found that the overall number of bus users increased by 7% since the previous census in 2002. However, over the same period the number of persons driving to work by car, lorry or van increased by 22%. The share of public transport by bus fell from 6.7% in 2002 to 6.1% in 2006.

The following are a number of characteristics specific to the bus market in Ireland:

Recent strong economic and population growth has led to a general increase in transport demand and longer commuter journeys;

There were almost 8,500 large public services vehicles registered in the State in 2007. Of this almost 1,200 were registered to Dublin Bus and 700 to Bus Éireann;

A major investment programme in Quality Bus Corridors (QBC), especially in Dublin, has improved bus journey times, relative to that of the car, but traffic congestion remains a problem in key locations;

A major investment in intercity motorways has led to opportunities and challenges for Bus Éireann;

There has been significant recent capital investment by the State in PSO fleet replacement and expansion for Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann. The average age of the fleet operated by Dublin Bus is 6 years. The average age of the fleet is similar in Bus Éireann (excluding schools fleet);

PSO current funding for Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann is relatively low when compared to comparable operations in other countries in Europe

Increases in fuel prices, combined with falling passenger numbers, have put significant financial pressures on both companies.

700

1148

7062

Bus Eireann fleet Dublin Bus fleet Other

Figure 1.1: Number of large public services vehicles 2008

Source: Department of Transport


Transport 21, the Irish Government‘s Transport Capital Investment Framework under the National Development Plan, has funded fleet expansion and bus infrastructure for both Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann in recent years. The main objectives of the programme for the Greater Dublin Area (GDA) include:

To develop a bus network to create a meshed network of services and reorientate it to take account of rail developments.

To create a network of interchange points across the public transport network to allow users transfer easily.

To introduce a Smart Card Integrated Ticket which can be used on all public transport services.

To develop Park and Ride facilities at carefully chosen locations.

To implement a phased programme of demand management measures.

To introduce an integrated public information system.

Transport 21 predicts public transport patronage in Dublin will almost double to 375 million in 2016. Suburban rail and Luas / Metro will carry c.100m each. c.175m passengers will be carried by bus. This shows that the bus will still be by far the largest public transport carrier at the passenger end of the Transport 21 programme. It will continue to be the principal means of increasing public transport capacity in the short to medium term. On Dublin corridors not served by rail and for the majority of other areas around the country, the bus will remain the dominant provider of public transport services.

In line with the Government commitment to delivering a sustainable travel and transport action plan for Ireland, the Minster for Transport launched a public consultation in February 2008. The consultation document suggested that bus services could be improved by:

Developing additional Park and Ride facilities.

Introducing integrated ticketing and Real Time Passenger Information (RTPI).

Introducing more flexibility in work practices to allow more responsive network planning.

Continuing the development and improvement of QBCs.

Doubling the length of bus priority schemes to improve the quality, reliability and efficiency of the bus fleet.

Investment in new fleet and maintenance of existing fleet.

Dublin Bus

Dublin Bus is a commercial Semi State Body, a subsidiary company of Córas Iompair Éireann (CIE). It commenced trading in 1987 under the terms of the Transport (Re-organisation of Córas Iompair Éireann) Act, 1986. The Act states that Dublin Bus has an operating area ―for the city and county of Dublin and contiguous areas…‖

Dublin Bus operates a comprehensive network of services serving a population of approximately 1.2 million people. This population is projected to grow to 1.5 million by 2020. Dublin Bus currently operates a PSO fleet of 1,148 buses on more than 200 routes and employs almost 3,800 full time members of staff. As the principal provider of public bus services in the region, it currently carries over 70% of public transport passengers in the city centre area. Dublin Bus carried almost 148 million passengers in 2007. The company currently operates 7 bus depots in Dublin: Clontarf, Summerhill, Donnybrook, Harristown, Phibsboro, Ringsend and Conyngham Road.

Company activities fall into two broad categories:

Social activities – these are activities undertaken as part of the Company‘s PSO and encompass the majority of the company‘s services. The company receives PSO payments from the Department of Transport to cover the difference between fare revenue and operating costs. EU regulation 1370/2007 requires that from December 2009, formal contracts are in place, providing for compensation plus a reasonable profit to be paid by the State for PSO activities.


Commercial activities – these refer to ‗for profit‘ services including sightseeing tours, Airlink and private hire services. Revenue derived from these activities amounted to c.6% of overall revenue in 2007. Our terms of reference do not extend to reviewing commercial activities.

According to the Company, approximately 80% of the Dublin Bus fleet use radial QBCs to some degree. Closer to 65% of the Dublin Bus fleet operate along significant sections of QBCs.

The 2007 Dublin Transportation Office QBC monitoring report indicates that bus passengers along QBC routes have increased by over 36% in the last 10 years. Current bus modal share and the proportion of people crossing the canal cordon between 7am and 10am along QBCs are;

Malahide Road 61%

Clontarf 61%

Lucan 52%

Blanchardstown 51%

Finglas 49%

Swords 49%

Stillorgan 45%

Howth Road 42%

South Clondalkin 42%

Tallaght 40%

North Clondalkin 41%

Rathfarnham 38%

Ballymun 38%

Rock Road 28%

Bray 28%

Overall bus modal share for persons crossing the canal cordon between 07:00-10:00 on a weekday is 28%. The aggregate share of all public transport (bus and rail) is c.50%.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

YearBus

Public Transport

Figure 1.2: Dublin mode share summary

Source: Dublin Transportation Office, QBC monitoring report (2007)

Bus

28%

Rail

17%Luas

4%

Car

36%

Taxi

1%

Walk

9%

Cycle

3%

Other

2%

Bus Rail Luas Car Taxi Walk Cycle Other

Figure 1.3: Dublin mode share summary 2007

Source: Dublin Transportation Office, QBC monitoring report (2007)


Bus Éireann

Bus Éireann is also a commercial Semi State body within the CIE Group. It commenced trading in 1987 under the terms of the Transport (Re-organisation of Córas Iompair Éireann) Act, 1986. The Act states that its principal object is to provide, within the State and between the State and places outside the State, a passenger service by road, except in so far as such a service is provided by Dublin Bus. It operates commercial, schools transport and public services activities outside the city and county of Dublin, serving a population of over 3 million people. This population is projected to grow to over 3.6 million by 2020. Bus Éireann operates a Public Service Obligation (PSO) fleet of over 450 buses on a variety of rural, city, suburban and town services.

Bus Éireann also operate commercial services, principally the Expressway service. School services are operated under contract with the Department of Education and Science on a cost recovery basis. Bus Éireann carried 50.2 million passengers in 2007 (excluding school transport scheme).

Detailed modal share information is not available outside of Dublin.

The various issues impacting on the operational environment for both Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann is set out below in diagrammatic form.

Operating environment

Dublin Bus

Bus Éireann

Motorways

Bus Garages

Bus Fleet

Bus Stations

QBCs

Ticket sale

channels

Rail

Luas

Transport 21

Bus

Private

Sector

New Dublin

Transport

Authority

PSO/

Licencing

Regime

Transport 21

City Centre

Disruption Fuel Cost

(Including

Rebate Removal)

Wage CostHealth & Safety

Working Time

Directive Overheads

Traffic

Congestion

Subventions:

Reduction in

Rate of IncreaseRapidly

Changing

Passenger Demand

Slowing

Economy

Integrated

Ticketing

EU RegulationPrivate Car

Figure 1.4: Issues facing Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann

Source: Deloitte


1.1 Current financial position

In this section we review the historical financial performance of the companies and the forecasted outturn for 2008 and 2009. While our terms of reference do not extend to a full financial review, it is important to understand the financial context when determining future actions relating to efficiency and effectiveness.

Up to 2007 both companies retained modest annual profits, net of PSO. The companies anticipate significant losses both in 2008 and 2009. Management highlighted the following issues as contributing factors to the forecasted losses in 2008 and 2009:

Decrease in passenger numbers as a result of the economic downturn.

Reduction in the rate of increase of PSO payments.

The removal of the fuel duty rebate scheme.

Increases in fuel and wage costs.

1.2 Profit and loss account


Figure 1.5: Dublin Bus/Bus Éireann retained surplus and PSO

Source: Dublin Bus / Bus Éireann audited accounts 2004 – 2007 and management forecasts 2008 and 2009

Audit Audit Audit Audit Forecast Forecast

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

€m €m €m €m €m €m

Revenue 177.6 181.5 189.3 200.4 202.4 209.5

Operating Costs (239.9) (245.8) (260.5) (286.8) (302.1) (325.3)

Gross Loss (62.4) (64.3) (71.2) (86.5) (99.7) (115.8)

PSO 61.8 64.9 69.8 80.1 85.8 85.2

Operating Profit / (loss) (0.6) 0.6 (1.4) (6.4) (13.9) (30.6)

Interest Receivable 1.4 1.5 1.7 2.5 2.5 1.7

Profit / (loss) before exceptional items 0.8 2.0 0.4 (3.9) (11.4) (28.9)

Additional pension contribution - - - - - (4.5)

Exceptional Items - - - - (0.7) (0.7)

Profit/(Loss) on Disposal of Assets 1.2 (0.0) 1.9 1.4 2.2 2.6

Release of Provision - - - 7.3 - -

CIE Subvention - - 2.0 - - -

Retained Profit / (loss) 2.0 2.0 4.3 4.8 (9.9) (31.5)

Table 1.1: Dublin Bus Profit and Loss account

Source: Dublin Bus audited accounts 2004 – 2007 and management forecasts 2008 and 2009, reclassified

Notes:

2006: The CIE Group made a contribution to the Company of €2m. 2007: €7.3m provision release related to third party claims. This followed a review of claims since the Personal Injuries Assessment Board began operations resulting in lower claims costs.


Audit Audit Audit Audit Forecast Forecast

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

€m €m €m €m €m €m

Revenue 226.5 241.29 265.1 282.9 298.8 319.0

Operating Costs (245.5) (263.7) (294.1) (323.2) (345.0) (385.5)

Gross Loss (18.9) (22.4) (29.1) (40.3) (46.2) (66.5)

PSO 24.0 25.2 26.5 36.6 36.9 41.5

Operating Profit/(Loss) 5.1 2.8 (2.6) (3.7) (9.3) (25.0)

Interest Receivable 0.7 0.7 0.9 1.5 2.0 1.0

Profit / (loss) before exceptional items 5.8 3.5 (1.7) (2.1) (7.3) (24.0)

Additional pension contribution - - - - - (3.5)

Exceptional Items - - - - (1.0) (2.0)

Kentsown Legal Fine - - - - (2.0) -

Parent Contribution - - 4.0 - - -

Release of Provision - - - 9.0 - -

Retained profit/(loss) per a/c's 5.8 3.5 2.3 6.9 (10.3) (29.5)

Table 1.2: Bus Éireann Profit and Loss summary

Source: Bus Éireann audited accounts 2004 – 2007 and management forecasts 2008 and 2009, reclassified

Notes:

2006: The CIE Group made a contribution to the Company of €4m. 2007: €9m provision release relates to third party claims. This followed a review of claims since the Personal Injuries Assessment Board began operations resulting in lower claims costs. 2008: The Kentstown legal fine of €2m relates to a Court ruling following an accident in 2005

1.3 Operating review

Both companies derive their revenue from two main sources - fare revenue and PSO revenue.

Fare revenue

The fare increase averaging 10% from 1 January 2009 is included in the 2009 forecast of both companies. The increase is considerably higher than in recent years. The yield from such a fare increase may be proportionally less than those earned from fare increases in recent years as the higher rate of increase may lead to a reduction in demand.

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Fare increase average 2.75% 3.5% 4.0% 2.75% 5.0% 10.0%

Table 1.3: Fare revenue

Source: Department of Transport

Dublin Bus has over 400 ticket agents selling prepaid tickets throughout Dublin. These agents are paid a commission of 4%. The cost of ticket distribution to agents is less than 1.5% of revenue.


Passenger numbers

Both companies forecast a fall in passenger numbers in 2008 and next year due to the general economic slowdown.

Dublin Bus has grown passenger numbers by almost 6% during the period 2001-2007. Dublin Bus passenger numbers peaked in 2003/4 at 149 million passengers. A 3% fall in passenger numbers in 2005 coincided with the introduction of Luas services. Passenger numbers for 2008 are predicted by Dublin Bus to fall by approximately 3% and a further 5% in 2009 due to the general economic downturn.

Dublin Bus

Bus Éireann

Figure 1. 6: Dublin Bus/Bus Éireann number of staff

Source: Dublin Bus/Bus Éireann audited accounts 2004 - 2007

Dublin Bus attribute the lack of growth in passenger numbers since 2004 to the introduction Luas, combined with the expansion of services and capacity on DART and Commuter rail.

Bus Éireann has grown passenger numbers by almost 15% during the period 2001-2007. Passenger numbers reached 50.2 million in 2007. Passenger numbers for 2008 are predicted by Bus Éireann to fall by approximately 2% and a further 4% in 2009 due to the general economic downturn.

The Dublin Bus fleet increased by 200 buses in 1999/2000. These buses were part funded by EU grants and were designated to meet additional peak demand along new QBCs. The number of vehicles in the fleet did not change significantly again until the delivery of an additional 20 vehicles in late 2005 and a further 100 vehicles in autumn 2006.

3,250 3,300 3,350 3,400 3,450 3,500 3,550 3,600 3,650 3,700

2004 2005 2006 2007 Year

-7.5%

-5.0%

-2.5%

0.0%

2.5%

5.0%

7.5%

Number of Staff % Increase/(decrease)

2,710

2,720

2,730

2,740

2,750

2,760

2,770

2,780

2,790

2004 2005 2006 2007 Year

-7.5%

-5.0%

-2.5%

0.0%

2.5%

5.0%

7.5%



Since 200, fleet capacity, as opposed to fleet size, has increased by almost 25%. This additional capacity has been provided through a mixture of additional buses and the replacement of older vehicles with larger ones. The increase in fleet capacity has not led to an equivalent increase in passenger numbers. Adding new buses is unlikely to drive additional passenger journeys unless additional measures are taken, as set out later in our report.

Figure 1. 7: Dublin Bus capacity growth and passenger growth

Source: Dublin bus management information

Fleet issues are discussed in further detail in Section 4.6.

Bus Éireann passenger numbers are set out below:

Passengers (millions) 2001 % 2002 % 2003 % 2004 % 2005 % 2006 % 2007 %

Provincial City Services 20.1 - 21.0 4% 21.4 2% 21.1 -1% 21.6 2% 21.9 2% 22.1 1%

Other scheduled services 23.7 - 25.1 6% 27.0 8% 26.7 -1% 27.5 3% 27.8 1% 28.1 1%

Sub Total 43.8 - 46.1 5% 48.4 5% 47.8 -1% 49.0 3% 49.7 1% 50.2 1%

Table 1. 4: Bus Éireann passenger numbers and % increase

Source: Bus Éireann actual 2001 – 2007

Management state that passenger numbers fell in 2004 due to:

Drainage works/road works in cork city which severally disrupted traffic for many months

Road works in Galway city (Eyre Square) which disrupted traffic for well over a year

Overall traffic congestion in Limerick city at peak hour

Worsening traffic congestion at peak hour on the main arteries into Dublin and the Quays in Dublin, which have been alleviated somewhat

Revenue forecasts for 2008 and 2009 anticipate a decrease in passenger numbers as a result of the economic downturn for both companies.

PSO

Government PSO payments, including capital payments, to both companies are relatively low.

In 2007, Dublin Bus received €80.1m operational subvention to cover its PSO. Bus Éireann received €36.6m operational subvention to cover its PSO.


Dublin Bus

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Year

€m

's

Capex Subvention -Amortised

Operating Subvention

Bus Éireann

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Year

€m

's

Capex Subvention - Amortised

Operating Subvention

Figure 1.8: Dublin Bus /Bus Éireann subvention

Source: Dublin Bus/Bus Éireann audited accounts 2004 – 2007 and management forecasts 2008 and 2009 (CAPEX unavailable)

The PSO payment is designed to meet the shortfall between the cost of operating PSO services and the revenue generated from such services. Generally, in recent years, the PSO payment has been increased at a rate of 5% per annum with further increases applying where new services have been introduced. PSO per passenger at both companies has been increasing in recent years. The increases for 2008 and 2009 amount to the following:

2008 2009

PSO Movement PSO Movement

Dublin Bus €85.8m 7% €85.2m (1)%

Bus Éireann €36.9m (1)% €41.5m 12%

Table 1.5: Dublin/Bus Éireann PSO

Source: Dublin Bus/Bus Éireann management forecasts 2008 & 2009


The Dublin Bus PSO payment in 2007 equated to c.29% of total revenue. Grants and subsidies to other comparable bus operations outside Ireland vary greatly. In Europe, levels of operational subvention are generally higher (% of revenue):

68% in Brussels

57% in Zurich

62% in Amsterdam

79% in Lyon

38.5% in London (regulated, excluding network management costs)

The Bus Éireann PSO payment in 2007 equated to c.12% of total revenue. In addition Bus Éireann has been using its own resources, generated on its commercial services, to subsidise PSO services. In 2007 the retained surplus from commercial and school transport amount to €8m. It is more difficult to identify comparable operators for Bus Éireann given their mix of services. When compared to PSO received by the national operators in the Netherlands, Belgium and Switzerland, the subsidy received by Bus Éireann is low:

Connexxion (Netherlands): Subsidy as percentage of revenue; 49%

Car Postal/Post Auto (Switzerland): Subsidy as percentage of revenue; 51%

TEC (Walloon region, Belgium): Subsidy as percentage of revenue; 78%

In addition to the annual PSO payment, Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann receive capital grants to partially fund the purchase of buses for PSO services or the upgrading of infrastructure for PSO services. These capital grants have the effect of lowering the annual PSO compensation requirement of the companies. This is due to the fact that the grant payments for buses and facilities are amortised on the same basis as assets are depreciated. Without the capital grants, the net depreciation charge for the companies would be higher.

In 2007, the amortised capital subvention amounted to €13.4m and €5.9m for Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann respectively. This compares to an operational PSO payment of €80.1m and €36.6m for Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann respectively.

Dublin Bus

Bus Éireann

Figure 1.9: Dublin Bus /Bus Éireann PSO per passenger

Source: Dublin Bus/Bus Éireann audited accounts 2004 – 2007; Management forecasts 2008 and 2009. Bus Éireann PSO analysis calculated with reference to passenger numbers excluding schools.


Operating costs

In the period 2004 to 2007, revenue and operating costs have increased as follows:

Dublin Bus: Revenue up 12.8%, Operating costs up 19.5%.

Bus Éireann: Revenue up 24.9% Operating costs up 31.6%.

The graphs below represent the relationship between revenue (excluding PSO revenue) and operating costs since 2004.

Dublin Bus

0

100

200

300

400

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Year

€m

's

Revenue excluding subvention

Operating Costs

Difference

Bus Éireann

0

100

200

300

400

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Year

€m

's

Revenue excluding PSO

Operating Costs

Difference

Figure 1.10: Dublin Bus / Bus Éireann revenue (excluding PSO) and operating costs

Source: Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann audited accounts 2004 – 2007 and management forecasts 2008 and 2009

Between 2004 and 2007, the kilometres operated by both companies grew approximately by 6% and 16% for Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann respectively.

Operating costs are dealt with in further detail in Section 3.


1.4 Balance sheet


Audited Accounts as at 31 December Audited Accounts as at 31 December

2004 2005 2006 2007 2004 2005 2006 2007

€m €m €m €m €m €m €m €m

Fixed Assets

Tangible Assets 119.6 120.7 155.5 163.5 81.1 79.9 95.2 121.7

Current Assets

Stocks 2.6 3.5 2.7 3.1 4.4 4.4 4.9 4.7

Debtors 79.9 81.6 76.6 89.2 43.8 52.6 56.3 69.2

Cash at bank - 0.2 0.8 0.8 0.2 1.2 0.9 0.8

82.5 85.3 80.1 93.1 48.4 58.2 62.1 74.7

Creditors (40.0) (39.5) (43.3) (60.3) (37.3) (38.6) (45.6) (54.1)

Net Current Assets 42.5 45.8 36.8 32.8 11.1 19.6 16.5 20.6

Total Assets less current liabilities 162.1 166.4 192.4 196.3 92.1 99.5 111.7 142.4

Provision for liabilities and charges (77.0) (80.1) (86.6) (77.5) (39.5) (43.7) (45.5) (39.5)

Deferred income (44.7) (43.9) (59.2) (67.3) (21.3) (21.0) (29.0) (58.9)

40.4 42.4 46.6 51.5 31.3 34.8 37.2 44.0

Financed by

Called up share capital 31.7 31.7 31.7 31.7 29.2 29.2 29.2 29.2

Asset replacement reserve 21 21 21 - 7 7 7 -

Profit and loss account (12.4) (10.4) (6.1) 19.7 (4.8) (1.3) 1 14.8

Shareholders' funds 40.4 42.4 46.6 51.5 31.3 34.8 37.2 44.0

Table 1.6: Dublin Bus & Bus Éireann balance sheet

Source: Dublin Bus/Bus Éireann audited accounts, reclassified

The Debtor balances for each company include amounts owing by the parent company, CIE Group (the Group carries out the treasury functions of the operating companies). The parent company debtor balances amounted to €76m (Dublin Bus) and €51m (Bus Éireann) in 2007.

Deferred income reflects European Union and Exchequer grants, which relate to capital expenditure on specific projects. They are credited to deferred income as they become receivable and are amortised to the profit and loss account on the same basis as the related assets are depreciated.

Financial Context Summary

After several years of modest annual profits, net of PSO payments, both companies face significant losses due to falls in passenger numbers, combined with significant cost increases (fuel, wages etc.). PSO levels are low by international standards.

The graph depicting passenger and capacity growth at Dublin Bus since 2000 demonstrates that the increase in capacity has not led to a substantial increase in passengers. Adding new buses to the existing network is unlikely to significantly drive additional passenger demand.

The forecasted losses for 2008 onwards are not sustainable. If remedial action is not taken, the projected rate of losses at both companies will result in a net asset deficit at each company in the near future. The companies have identified the need to put in place a cost reduction programmes to address the shortfalls.


2. Effectiveness and appropriateness

of the current network of services

Network design and scheduling of drivers and buses should be led by the requirements of the passenger. For the public transport user, services should be simple to understand, easy to use, reliable and integrated. Timetable design should reflect the level of demand at different times of the day and should be attractive to the passenger. Clockface intervals are a key feature of best practice timetable design, especially for low frequency routes. Bus arrival times on high frequency routes should be timed to be as evenly spaced as possible for passenger convenience and to even out the number of passengers travelling on each bus.

In this section we assess the approach to network and service development at both a strategic and operational level and highlight examples of practices in other countries. We assess driver and bus schedules at the garages subject to our review. We also assess timetable design. Finally we set out a conceptual redesign of services along a sample corridor in Dublin.

2.1 Dublin Bus network design process

The guidelines to Dublin Bus in relation to network and service operations are currently reflected in statute, the ‗Platform for Change‘ document published by the Dublin Transport Office (DTO), Transport 21, and the Memorandum of Understanding agreed annually with the Department. This will be further strengthened by the provisions of the Dublin Transport Authority Act 2008 which provide for a contract regime for all PSO services in the GDA.

Dublin Bus operates a comprehensive network covering towns as far north as Balbriggan, as far west as Kilcock and as far south as Newtownmountkennedy.

In recent years a major investment programme has been carried out to develop QBCs and this has achieved improvements in journey times and customer service on several key corridors. In addition, high quality bus shelters have been provided along many bus routes.

With an increasing population expected in the GDA over the coming years, and changing land use patterns, the National Development Plan 2007 to 2013 foresees the need for a transformation in the public transport network in the GDA. The NDP sets out the projects necessary to achieve this e.g. Metro North, Metro West, extension to the Luas network. A significant expansion of the bus fleet and bus priority also forms part of the plan.

It has been consistently stated that the bus will remain the main provider of public transport services pending the delivery of other public transport infrastructure such as new Luas lines and Metro.

The construction phase of a number of Transport 21 projects will have a significant impact on the city centre resulting in street closures and traffic disruption over the coming years.

The current bus network has not been significantly redesigned for many years. This is primarily due to a perception that any changes to the existing network will meet public resistance. The result is that the Dublin Bus network has become, in our opinion, overly complex with a significant amount of service duplication.

There is an opportunity to create a simplified bus network offering improved services with improved cost efficiency.

Dublin Bus has informed us that they understand the primary objective of public transport policy is to carry more passengers and increase modal share for public transport.


Dublin Bus network design

The network design process in the company, as described by Dublin Bus management, is set out below. It begins at the strategic level which is primarily progressed within the Business Development and Operations departments and then moves on to the tactical/route level where the details routes/schedules are designed at Area Operations level.

Strategic level

Strategic network review commissioned every 5 years to identify the key requirements, issues and priorities for the short to medium term.

Regular contact with the Local Authorities and Development Agencies to establish new population locations and their rate of development. This identifies and prioritises the areas which will require additional services

Review of bus network in the context of census data and data from DTO.

Extensive interaction with the Quality Bus Network Office to agree the development of the network of orbital and radial QBC‘s.

Internal benchmarking and monitoring of routes and corridors from a revenue, passenger and profitability basis identifies loading, profitability or operational issues to resolve.

Approval sought for all changes to the Dublin Bus network from the Department of Transport. In addition there are regulatory issues arising from Irish and EU law that affect our ability to adjust the network in specific areas – these are factored into the design process or force changes to designed routes.

Tactical/route level

A large range of factors influence the detailed design of a new or adjusted route. Initially factors such as profitability, capacity utilisation, running time, operational performance, and previous timetable issues will be critical for Area Operations.

A large range of issues influence the design such as :

New residential development and employment developments

Other demographic changes

Political / social considerations

Interchange – rail / LUAS

Roads developments

QBCs

Traffic congestion problems

Terminus availability

Running time adequacy

Bus type

Network effects – parallel routes

Roster /scheduling issues

Garage allocation – breaks and reliefs

Previous schedule – staff issues

Previous schedule – customer issues

Final design implemented after staff agreement reached. All schedules must be approved in detail by the Department of Transport.

Extent of marketing depends on the scale of the change. This can range from national media advertisements and household leaflet drops for major improvements to small statutory ads for minor adjustments. All changes are posted on the internet.


The most recent strategic network review commission by Dublin Bus was published in early 2006. The review made a number of recommendations including;

425 additional buses to deal with a reported severe lack of capacity – reflecting projected growth of the city;

more QBCs to restrain growth in journey times;

cross linkage of services to reduce demands on city centre termini;

expansion to serve developing areas; and

simplification of timetabling, information and fares.

To date, the Dublin Bus 2006 strategy has not been fully implemented. Capital subvention was provided by the Exchequer, for the first stage of fleet expansion. The company reports that insufficient operational subvention, combined with licensing issues, prevented the full deployment of the 100 additional buses received in the autumn of 2006. Other elements within the strategy, such as improved timetabling and scheduling, have also not yet been implemented fully.

Case study: Transport for London (TfL) – network planning

We set out below the approach to network planning adopted by Transport for London. The London bus network is one of the largest and most comprehensive urban transport systems in the world. Every weekday over 6,800 scheduled buses carry around six million passengers on over 700 different routes.

The network is dynamic and responds to changes in London‘s growth and changing customer needs. Every year a fifth of the bus service is re-tendered, with around half of the network subject to some level of review.

TfL has the role of regulator and strategic planner for bus services in London, including the responsibility for planning bus routes, fares and timetables. Services are then tendered for operation by the private sector, typically under 5 year contracts.

TfL has service planning guidelines for buses which specify that the network should be:

Comprehensive – TfL aims to provide a bus service within 400 metres of every household in London where feasible, as well as providing links to key destinations and other transport modes.

Frequent – Rather than diluting resources into large numbers of low frequency services, TfL aims to provide ―turn up-and-go‖ schedules as far as possible.

Simple – route structures and timetables should be simple and easily marketable to the public.

Reliable – low frequency services should be punctual and high frequency services should arrive at even intervals.

Accessible to all – buses and infrastructure should be wheelchair accessible and take into account other disabilities such as sight and hearing impairment.

TfL uses contract renewal as an opportunity to review routes and implement any major changes that may be necessary to that route. However, contracts may be renegotiated at other times to allow for changing passenger demand or other circumstances, such as changes to congestion charging.

TfL Buses collects a significant amount of data on passenger demand through a number of mechanisms, including origin and destination surveys on buses, loadings surveys at bus stops, and data from ticket machines on each bus. The origin and destination patterns are particularly important when assessing route options. It also considers suggestions from local authorities, bus operators, passenger correspondence and other interested parties. Options for each route are then developed in the context of the Mayor‘s strategies.

Like many public sector transport organisations, TfL assesses all changes to the network, from the evaluation of a five-year route contract down to the addition of a single daily departure on a route, using cost-benefit criteria. TfL defines benefit largely in terms of time savings for passengers (from changes to frequencies, geographical coverage, hours of operation and reliability). Passenger time is given a monetary value so that it can be assessed against cost. Cost is defined as the price of the


service change minus the revenue it is expected to generate.

When funding is restricted, schemes are prioritised in terms of their cost benefit ratio. Cost-benefit is also used when cuts in the network are required, in order to assess the least damaging changes. Cost-benefit is only set aside when there are overriding reasons for a service change (such as the need to supply capacity to prevent overcrowding).

Some aspects of benefit, such as social inclusion or pollution reduction, are difficult to quantify. In addition, some groups of passengers, such as senior citizens, are more sensitive to changes than others. To ensure these aspects are taken into account, TfL consults stakeholders such as local authorities and London Travelwatch on major changes.

Changing the current network

Dublin Bus management believe that where changes to the network involve significant service changes, or reduction of service, then significant public and local political resistance may be expected. This public/political resistance has led to past decisions being reversed or altered significantly.

Dublin Bus view on changing the current network

Dublin Bus believes that any changes to their existing network will encounter public resistance. In their January 2006 business case for 200 additional buses, Dublin Bus state:

―Dublin Bus is charged with operating a network of services across the Dublin area. This means that legally and politically the Company is expected to maintain access to public transport and there is always major reaction to any suggestion of removing a service from any particular area.

The result of this is that the network can be more complex in certain areas that would be required if run in a strictly commercial basis. This in turn can result in lightly used services which are essentially providing socially necessary linkages.

Dublin Bus routinely rationalises its bus services and the bus network is constantly being reconfigured in response to changing circumstances.

However, the social exclusion and political issues which will arise from systematic cancellation of lightly used routes are major, and must be considered in a broader context.

Recent experiences where Dublin Bus proposed to reorganise local services met with major opposition from customers and public representatives and the practical approach is one of more gradual change which is what Dublin Bus is planning to achieve over the next few years and single bus savings could only be expected each year. In practice, savings made tend to be absorbed within the garage to adjust schedules for deterioration in running time; this requires additional resources to retain frequencies.‖

Going forward, strong political and management leadership will be required if significant improvements are to be made to the efficiency and effectiveness of Dublin‘s bus network.


2.2 Dublin Bus overview of network and services

Dublin Bus operates a comprehensive service, covering most parts of the city well. We have reviewed the current network and set of services operated by Dublin Bus. We have identified a number of areas where the potential to make improvements exists:





E. Timetable design




The current network can appear complex to the casual user as a result of the number of different route variants and the mix between high and low frequency services.

Examples have been identified where the current network is overly complex and can act as a barrier to use:

Related services typically have variants such as the 4/4A, though in some cases there are many variants (eg 40, 40A, 40B, 40C, 40D).

In some cases the linkage between route variations can be tenuous. For example, Route 17 is an orbital service on the southside of Dublin while Route 17A is an orbital service on the northside of Dublin. Route 51A serves Beaumount hospital on the northside of the city while Route 51B serves Clondalkin on the westside of the city.

On the Stillorgan QBC the new route to Bray has been numbered 145 to link with the old non QBC route to Bray (the 45), rather than the 46A with which it is common for a significant length. The 46A could be assumed to be a variant of Route 46, yet there is no such route.

Particular areas are served by a range of route numbers (e.g. Malahide Road: 20B, 27, 27B, 27C, 27X, 42, 42A, 42B, 43, 128, 129; Rathmines: 14, 14A, 15, 15A, 15B, 15E, 15F, 18, 65, 65B, 74, 74A, 83, 128, 142 )

Route 128 is a high frequency all day, every day route while Route 129 has two departures each weekday in each direction and does not operate at weekends.

Our analysis demonstrates that it is possible to create a more simplified network which will be easier to understand and less costly to operate.

Network simplification: Belfast bus services example (“Metro”)

Translink introduced the 'Belfast Metro' network in February 2005 having commissioned TAS to design, test and validate network changes. The plans were tested using Geographic Information Systems to ensure the network met equality and accessibility parameters.

The result was a highly visible colour coded network on 12 core corridors with 5-10 minute weekday daytime frequencies on the main sections. The network delivered better services for more people, improved punctuality and reliability.

Mileage operated grew by 5%, the fleet was upgraded and the complete package delivered 20% growth in passenger numbers across the Metro business.

While the scale of operations in Belfast is significantly smaller than Dublin, the principles remain the same.


Dublin Bus has stated that three key factors contribute to the complexity of the network in Dublin, namely that:

Dublin Bus has a general obligation to provide a network of PSO services in the Dublin area and the elimination of marginal services could be the subject of legal challenge.

Dublin is a very low density city and in many suburbs there is considerable physical segregation of areas leading to complex road and route patterns.

Their current preference is to favour retention of long established route numbers, which has the benefit of familiarity to existing customers, over a simplified route numbering system, which will benefit new customers.

Network complexity and Dublin town planning

Dublin Bus management highlighted difficulties encountered in serving the following two areas due to town planning issues.

Example 1: Littlepace

Littlepace is a residential area between Blanchardstown and Clonee. Littlepace requires local and commuter bus services.

Dublin Bus serves Littlepace with Route 70 which originates in Dunboyne and Clonee. Ideally the route would operate through Littlepace and join the road network at Huntstown Way and operate a direct alignment towards Blanchardstown and the city centre. However Littlepace is a cul de sac for buses and cars (pedestrians and cyclists can travel through), and the lack of a through route means that Route 70 must operate a 3 kilometre round trip.

Dublin Bus state that services could be more direct, faster and cost efficient if provision had been made by town planners for bus only access through Littlepace. Dublin Bus has been in discussions with Fingal County Council for over 10 years seeking a ‗bus only gate‘ between Littlepace and Huntstown Way to no avail.

Example 2: Swords

Swords has expanded considerably in recent years in a segmented fashion making bus services to Swords relatively costly and complex.

Dublin Bus has 5 main geographic ‗markets‘ in the Swords area:

Northern; Applewood, Glen Ellen

Western; Swords Manor

South Western; River Valley

North Eastern; Seatown

South Eastern; Drynam/Holywell

The main travel patterns are for local, airport and city centre movements. Dublin Bus believe it is not cost effective to operate a strong high frequency all day service from each of these individual areas. However, a combination of areas can sustain such services. However, in the context of the existing road infrastructure, a single strong bus route must operate a circuitous alignment from and into more than one sector to serve its customer base.

Dublin Bus believe town planning should take into account public transport needs so that high frequency bus routes can operate more direct alignments between sectors on bus-only paths, benefiting customers in each of the segments. The following could improve bus service effectiveness if introduced.

A western bus-only crossing of Ward River Valley Park

Bus only access from River Valley Road to Hilltown

Bus only streets or ‗bus-gates‘ into Swords Main St, so that buses avoid getting caught in major congestion


Bus access through Holywell. The high density scheme was developed recently and the mini-roundabouts on the main access road through this scheme cannot facilitate a buses safely passing using the roundabout.

Refraining from allowing developments on the margins to be built which are impossible to serve due to inadequate roads or lack of turning/layover facilities for buses (Knocksedan to the west and Castleview to the north are examples)

New road design and old road update to restrain private car use and encourage bus travel.

Development of bus stop infrastructure including accessible bus stops and sufficient space for bus stops and bus shelters.

Dublin Bus state that the town planning design principles described above should be built into developments rather than being retrospectively introduced.

Source: Dublin Bus Management Information


Our analysis has shown that where services share a significant portion of a route with other bus services, the timetables are not necessarily coordinated. This means that the service to customers along the common route is not as good as it could be, given the resources deployed.

Figure 2.1: Route 15, 15A and 15B Interval times Monday to Friday from Eden Quay


Routes 15, 15A, 15B share 5 km of their respective routes from Eden Quay to Terenure via St Stephen‘s Green, Rathmines and Rathgar. Routes 15 and 15B continue to share a common route for a further 2 km to Templeogue Bridge.

Figure 2.1 illustrates the extent to which more than one bus serving the common corridor departs at the same time from Eden Quay while at other times there are gaps of between 10 and 15 minutes. The average interval for the day is 6 minutes. At 09:45 all three buses depart together followed by a 15 minute gap before another two depart together.

Services outlined in Figure 2.1 could be coordinated to deliver a 6 minute interval with the current resources or with a slightly lower frequency using fewer resources while still delivering an enhanced service.



It is not uncommon to see buses operating along the same route running in pairs. Our analysis of ticketing data demonstrates that ―bus bunching‖ is an issue for Dublin Bus.

While congestion is a major factor in causing buses to ―bunch‖, it is possible to minimise this by:

Ensuring departures on routes are set at even headways.

Introducing intermediate times for services.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

06

:40

07

:10

07

:25

07

:40

08

:00

08

:25

08

:40

09

:00

09

:20

09

:40

10

:00

10

:25

10

:50

11

:25

12

:00

12

:30

13

:00

13

:20

13

:45

14

:15

14

:35

15

:05

15

:25

15

:50

16

:15

16

:40

17

:00

17

:20

17

:40

17

:55

18

:20

18

:45

19

:05

19

:45

20

:15

21

:00

21

:25

22

:10

22

:50

23

:25

Time

Inte

rva

l B

etw

ee

n D

ep

art

ure

s (

min

s)

Scheduled Interval

Actual Frequency

Figure 2.2: Example of scheduled terminus departures from city centre for Routes 40/A/B/C/D


Figure 2.2 demonstrates how the timetable interval between departures at the city centre terminus, though commonly at 5 minutes, fluctuates between 0 and 10 minutes for most of the day. We also show the actual frequency experienced by customers along the route, which is below the potential frequency that could be achieved from the resources operating along the route. The difference is due to buses bunching and is explained in further detail in our report.

A coordinated timetable could deliver even headways and, when combined with intermediate times, the average waiting time could be reduced significantly.

Headways

Maintaining even headways ensures that the time spent by each service at bus stops should be relatively consistent.

Examples of inconsistency between the intervals of timetabled departures on Route 46A and Route 4 are set out Figure 2.3 and Figure 2.4.

In the event that even headways are not maintained, buses that follow a longer than typical interval will pick up more passengers than average and, therefore, progress at a lower speed than average to the extent that the bus departing behind it may catch up. Buses that follow a shorter rather than typical interval will pick up fewer passengers than average and therefore progress at a higher speed than average to the extent that it may catch up with the bus ahead of it.


Recently introduced Route 140 maintains an even headway throughout the day.

Figure 2.3: Route 46A timetable departure interval times from Dun Laoghaire, Monday to Friday


Figure 2.4: Route 4 timetable interval times from Harristown, Monday to Friday


The 2006 MVA network review identified the need for ―more regular headways to make the timetables ‗passenger friendly‘ ‖.

Intermediate times

Intermediate times will make it possible to publish actual departure times at bus stops as opposed to the current practice of publishing departure times from the terminus. They can assist in maintaining even headways along an entire route. Intermediate times are dealt with further in Section 4.1.



The strong demand for recently introduced routes such as the 128, 140 and 151 demonstrate the attractiveness of services offering direct routings, simple even headway timetables and cross city options.

Route Number Routing Date service commenced Weekly Passenger Numbers

4/4A Harristown to Blackrock Nov 2007 67,000

128 Clongriffin to Rathmines Nov 2007 60,000

140 Finglas to Lesson Street Feb 2008 38,000

151 Adamstown to Docklands Mar 2007 41,000

Table 2. 1: New direct, high frequency services

Source: Dublin Bus electronic ticket machine data

Operating services along a direct route can also reduce the cost base.

A lack of bus street stands in the city centre, particularly during the construction of Transport 21 projects, means fewer buses will be able to terminate in the city centre. However the reliability of cross city services can be poor due to congestion. To minimise reliability issues, cross city services should operate along routes where there are high levels of bus priority and this should be addressed as soon as possible.

Rationalising cross city services may also have the potential to reduce operating costs. As an example, we identified certain routes from our case study garages currently terminating at ―far side‖ cross city locations (e.g. Routes 7, 46A and 145 terminate close to O‘Connell Street, while Routes 13/A and 140 terminate on Merrion Square and Lesson Street). Analysis of ticketing data has shown that there appears to be sufficient capacity on these type of services along the core north / south corridor between Parnell Square and St Stephen‘s Green for them to be amalgamated. This would have the effect of reducing the number of buses on the heavily congested section of road, reducing the resources required to operate the combined routes and open additional travel options for customers.

Dublin Bus state they are in favour of radial route amalgamation subject to the resolution of the city centre congestion and route length issues. To minimise reliability issues, cross city services should operate along routes where there are high levels of bus priority. This is not currently always the case.

E. Timetable design

A review of the services operated by the case study garages identified a number of instances where operational priorities have resulted in timetabled services operating in a manner that leads to customer service issues. For example:

Route 145: A number of services throughout the day, departing on an even headway at the terminus, are subsequently diverted to Bray station to facilitate driver changeover, leading to potential bunching of buses further along the route.

Route 46A: Inconsistent headways lead to potential bunching of buses. The buses and drivers allocated to the route between 10:00 to 16:00, Monday to Friday, have capacity to provide departures from Dun Laoghaire every 6 minutes on average. However, inconsistent timetabled headways lead to departures as close as 2 minutes apart and as far apart as 8 minutes. Over the same period on a Saturday departures are as close as 5 minutes apart and as far apart as 16 minutes with an average departure interval of 9 minutes.

Route 40: There are 72 departures from the city centre on a weekday but these are not consistent timed with intervals scheduled at 15 minutes (37 times), 10 minutes (16 times) and 20 minutes (12 times). Lack of coordination leads to duplicate departures with other Route 40 variants.

Route 4: Generally this service has a simple, even headway timetable but with certain instances where additional services are operated without apparent demand and where the rotation between Route 4 and Route 4a departures are not maintained.


While we have identified the importance of maintaining even headways for services earlier in this report, it is also important that timetables are designed in a user friendly format. Ideally the following features should exist for the majority of key routes:

Clockface departures or high frequency headways (e.g. ―every 6 mins‖).

Intermediate timing points.

Deviations from the core service at certain time of the day should be kept to a minimum.

Fonts and text sizes at bus stops should be easily readable in diminished lighting.


The company has recently developed a new marketing strategy and information provision is a key feature of a successful marketing campaign. Network and service simplification will make information provision easier to achieve.

Important sources of information for the customer include:

Bus stop information

The company have recently introduced ―Transport for London Style‖ bus stops at 80 city centre locations with a further 40 to be installed early in 2009. Features of these bus stops include:

Clear identification of buses serving the stop.

Timetable information facilitated by larger information panels.

Route diagrams.

While the introduction of these bus stops is a positive development, further enhancements are possible. Currently all timetable information at bus stops gives departure times from the terminus, irrespective of how far the bus stop is from the commencement of the route. In many instances, particularly away from the city centre, many bus stops carry no information - not even a list of routes serving the stop. This acts as a barrier to use for the casual user.

Best practice in bus stop design includes the following features:

A clear indication of the routes serving the stop.

The display of intermediate departure times. Stop specific timetables should be considered.

Details of fares that will apply to journeys from the stop.

The provision of a local area map with bus routes overlaid and the present location clearly indicated. The provision of spider maps should be considered. (similar to those used by London Underground).

A telephone number for information (if this service is provided).

Customer service contact details for Dublin Bus, including telephone number, postal address, e-mail and website.

The bus stop should be named or some other identification so that passengers can report vandalism or missing information.


Journey planner and network maps

Dublin Bus management state that they intend launching a new website in January 2009, with significantly enhanced search facilities.

The company is currently developing a network map to illustrate services across their entire network. An easy to understand city-wide map is essential to allow intending passengers to determine which routes to take and the best location to interchange.

The design will need to distinguish between high frequency and low frequency routes in order to make the map of benefit to customers. The large number of route variants operated by Dublin Bus on most corridors will be difficult to communicate on a single map.

We also recommend actual departure times be published at bus stops and, where possible RTPI be provided.

Our recommendations regarding network and service simplification will make it easier to market and explain services to customers.


A simplified network of services with reduced variations and duplication will be less expensive to operate. Our analysis of the Finglas Case Study corridor of services indicated that a more efficient service could be provided for a net cost saving of up to 17% (saving up to €2.1m). Our conceptual design means the majority of customers will benefit from a simplified and more reliable service. In our report we have analysed a number of options based on our views and the views of the company. In every scenario considered, the results show a positive financial benefit for the company.

We recommend that a thorough review of the whole network, particularly along key corridors be undertaken so that the potential savings which the Finglas corridor case study has highlighted can be identified across the network and the consequential financial savings made.

We set out below a summary of our review of services along the Finglas Corridor.

Case study – Finglas corridor

Existing services

The majority of services in the Finglas area operate along the Finglas Road, the N2 (―the Finglas Corridor‖). Services along the Finglas corridor are made up of:

Routes 40/A/B/C/D: These are long established Finglas services operating from Parnell Square in the city.

Route 140: This is a new route offering cross city service to Lesson Street with regular 10 minute all day frequency.

The introduction of Route 140 significantly increased capacity on the Finglas corridor and offered direct, cross city travel options to customers. The pre existing set of services were not altered when Route 140 was introduced.

Figure 2.2 graphically shows an example of scheduled terminus departures from the city centre for routes 40/A/B/C/D (prior to including Route 140) which serve the Finglas corridor, together with actual waiting times along the route.

Figure 2.2 demonstrates how the timetable interval between departures at the city centre terminus, though commonly at 5 minutes, fluctuates between 0 and 10 minutes for most of the day. The green line shows the actual frequency experienced by customers along the route which is below that which the resources operating along the route could potentially offer.

While analysis of ticket data has shown some heavily loaded peak journeys, there are also some lightly loaded peak journeys. We believe this represents buses running in pairs – in some cases as


scheduled. Inter-peak journeys rarely carry more than 30 passengers.

Proposed services

There are several ways the services on this case study corridor could be made more efficient and more customer friendly:

eliminate duplication of services;

reduce number of service variants;

co-ordinate timetables;

even headway departures;

intermediate times; and

provide better customer information.

The above changes would give the company the opportunity to provide equivalent or better services at lower than current costs or provide significantly enhanced services at current costs.

As an example we developed a conceptual design focused on providing an equivalent or better service at a reduced cost. This consists of:

Two standard pattern Finglas to city centre services (south city terminus). City centre services reduced to two core routes, from the current six, with integrated timetables offering a combined 5 minute peak frequency and 7.5 minute off peak frequency.

Additional peak journeys providing two way flows to city centre and Tyrrelstown and a residual off peak service to areas unserved by the main routes. This helps ensure that peak demand is catered for, while services to Tyrrelstown are maintained.

A local Finglas service, ensuring access to Finglas village is maintained.

Minor changes to other Finglas services not using the Finglas corridor.

Under this scenario a redesigned and improved service could be provided for the large majority of passengers with a cost saving of up to €2.1m (17% of current cost base of services along the corridor).

There are several other options that could be considered while keeping to the key principles of simplification, even clockface departures and better customer service. We accept that any redesign will require a change in services and a change in behaviour for customers. For example, some customers will get an enhanced service at their current locations while other customer may need to walk a little further to access an enhanced service. This kind of change and communication needs to be handled carefully and sensitively to ensure a successful outcome.

In our working papers we analyse a number of revenue scenarios, based on our views and the views of the company, to assess the impact of the changes identified in our conceptual design. In every scenario considered, the results show a positive financial benefit for the company.

Dublin Bus accept that there is some scope for reviewing the service pattern in the Finglas area and state that they have commenced a review of services taking account of the principles identified in this report. Dublin Bus state that it was their intention to make adjustments to the level of service in the area when the passenger trends start to stabilise, following the introduction of Route 140.

The case study corridor is one of fourteen main radial corridors operated by Dublin Bus. A number of these corridors have benefited from service capacity increases, through the introduction of new routes, in recent years. However, the new routes have been introduced without significant adjustments to the existing network or set of services. Instances exist on other corridors where the timetables of services sharing several kilometres of route are not coordinated. A rigorous application of the above principles to these other corridors is likely to deliver significant efficiency gains.


Dublin Bus network summary

Guidelines from the Department of Transport as to the policy and objectives of PSO payments will be further strengthened by the provisions of the Dublin Transport Authority Act 2008 which provide for a contract regime.

The current network is overly complex due to a mixture of route variations, inconsistent timetabling and the introduction of new routes on top of existing routes.

The recent significant changes to land use and demographics in Dublin combined with major changes to Luas, expansion of DART and commuter rail, quality bus corridors etc mean that there is a clear opportunity to strategically redesign the current network to make it more efficient and effective.

We recommend that a network redesign exercise be undertaken concentrating on bundles of routes along key corridors to address the design principles raised in this section:

Redesign network based on most recent patterns of demand/demographics.

Simplify the network and reduce the number of variations of routes.

Eliminate unnecessary duplication of services, maximising the return from deployed resources.

Create even headways between departures and introduce intermediate running times to reduce the potential for ―bunching‖ of buses.

Provide additional direct routes.


Achieve enhanced value for money from service provision.


2.3 Bus Éireann network design process

The guidelines to Bus Éireann relating to network and service operations are reflected in statute, the Transport 21 programme, the Memorandum of Understanding agreed annually with the Department of Transport and to the extent relevant to the operational activities of Bus Éireann the ‗Platform for change‘ document published by the DTO. These guidelines will be further strengthened by the provisions of the Dublin Transport Authority 2008 which provide for a contract regime for PSO services in the GDA and with the introduction of a contract regime for PSO services outside the GDA in the rest of the country in 2009 under the provisions of the proposed Transport Regulation Bill.

Bus Éireann has a PSO fleet of c.450 buses operating 57 City urban, suburban and town routes and 195 Stage Carriage routes. It has c.220 buses operating 45 expressway routes.

In recent years a major investment programme has been carried out to develop QBCs in Dublin and Green routes in other cities. This has achieved improvements in journey times on certain routes. Investment has also led to an expansion and upgrading of the bus fleet and bus stations around the country.

Bus Éireann have informed us that they understand their primary role is to operate an integrated network across the country.

Strategic approach to network development

Bus Éireann describe their network design functions as falling into three broad categories:

Strategic (3 to 10 years) – inputs include National Spatial Strategy, Regional Planning Guidelines, County Development Plans, PLUTS (Planning Land Use and Transportation Study), Transport 21, and Bus Éireann‘s own business plans.

Tactical (1 to 3 years) – inputs include route and corridor reviews, stakeholder consultation and internal proposals.

Operational (0 to 12 months) – inputs include period and quarterly reviews, route and corridor research, local traffic conditions and road construction.

The construction phase of a number of Transport 21 projects will have a significant impact on Bus Éireann services into and out of Dublin city.


2.4 Bus Éireann overview of network and services

Bus Éireann operate a wide range of services:

City Bus Services in Cork, Galway, Limerick and Waterford

Town services in Athlone, Balbriggan, Drogheda, Dundalk, Navan and Sligo

Commuter bus services radiating from Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Galway and Waterford

Local bus services throughout Ireland

Expressway inter-urban coach services

Eurolines coach services to Britain and Europe

The network is operated on an integrated basis, providing service for people to travel from any point on its network to another. This is facilitated through:

Integrated timetables

Interchange points

Journey planner

Through-fares (i.e. one ticket for travel on potentially several services)

Examples of the practical benefits of an integrated network were provided by Bus Éireann following studies carried out at the following locations:

Category of survey point Trip origin Trip destination on a typical day

Minor locations O‘Rourkes Cross, Co. Limerick Westport, Glengarriff, Kinsale, Drimoleague, Castlemaine, Dublin, Ballina, Sligo

Crusheen, Co. Clare Waterford, Tralee, Sligo, Loughrea, Tipperary, Killarney, Newmarket on Fergus, Knock

Large towns (also served by rail)

Mallow, Co. Cork Over 60 destinations

Ennis, Co. Clare Over 100 destinations

Table 2. 2: Examples of journeys facilitated through an integrated network

Source Bus Éireann analysis

NORTH (Donegal, Belfast, Derry etc.MIDLAND (Athlone, Longford, etc.WEST (Galway, Mayo, Sligo, etc.)

EAST (Dublin, Kildare, Meath, et.)

EASTDublin

WEST

Galway, Mayo, etc.

NORTHDonegal, Derry, etc.

SOUTHCork, Kerry

SOUTH (Cork)SOUTH EAST (Waterford, Wexford)

NENAGH

Silvermines

Newport

Cappamore

Killaloe

Scariff

Borrisokane

Lorrha

Birr

Roscrea

Limerick

Figure 2.5: Integrated Networrk - Examples of travel options from Nenagh

Source: Bus Éireann management information


The current integrated network is funded through fares, public service obligation (PSO) payments, and funding from Bus Éireann‘s commercial resources.

However, the network is subject to continuing change. The opening of motorways and town bypasses place additional pressure on the maintenance of the existing network. However, with major improvements to the road network, customers from large towns will opt for direct express services where possible, thus diluting the financial viability of services to smaller towns. Secondary locations by-passed as a result of direct express services may become uneconomic and may require PSO funding.

We assessed the network operated by Bus Éireann against the following:




D. Timetable design

E. Marketing and information provision

F. Optimising the cost of services


City services: 17 routes are operated in Cork city with fewer city routes operated in Galway, Limerick and Waterford. The small number of routes, combined with the limited use of route variants ensures services are relatively easy to understand.

Figure 2.6: Cork City services

Source: Bus Éireann management information

AAA



Services along corridors are generally coordinated, except where peak demand require extra services.

An example of services along a commuter corridor is set out below. Weekday departures from Busáras on Route 109:

4 departures an hour to Dunshaughlin (every 15 minutes)

2 of these services extended to Navan and Kells (every 30 minutes)

1 of these departures extended to Virginia and Cavan (every hour)


The potential for ―bus bunching‖ is relatively low for Bus Éireann city services as frequencies tend to be every 10 minutes or greater. Timetables that generally adhere to even headways reduces the potential for bunching further.

D. Timetable design

The vast majority of Bus Éireann services operate clockface timetables.

E. Marketing and information provision

A journey planner is available on Bus Éireann‘s website. We believe that improvements could be made, in terms of customer information, particularly at bus stops.

The majority of bus stops in Cork city do not indicate what route numbers are serving the stop. Timetables are not displayed at all bus stops. City services should also display intermediate times, to assist both driver and customer.

In Dublin City, it is rare for Bus Éireann route information to be available at stops that are also designed to serve Dublin Bus routes. Any stop served by a Bus Éireann service should be clearly marked to indicate this fact while also supplying full timetable information.

During our review Bus Éireann accepted that the range and level of information provided at stops could be improved upon. It is currently in the process of erecting approximately 200 additional bus shelters across the country to add to the 430 shelter in the network. As part of this process Bus Éireann are also updating customer information at the shelters. In the East, Bus Éireann are currently updating all bus poles with improved information for customers

F. Optimising the cost of services

Given the extensive integrated network operated by Bus Éireann, the operation of the network is generally efficient when compared to comparable operators.

Given current economic constraints, we recommend that a programme be put in place to assess the detailed cost benefit analysis of services along each corridor. The analysis will assist in addressing the following possible options;

1. Run a single service from a town via a series of villages to a city centre.

2. Run a direct service, leaving the villages unserved.

3. Run two services, one direct from the town to the city and another which either links the villages to the city, or also serves the town.

4. As item 2 but with a shuttle feeder link to/from villages (e.g. by taxi or rural transport minibus).


Development plan appraisal

We were presented with the company‘s development plans for Cork, Galway, Leinster & East, Limerick & Tralee, North West, and Waterford. Since the various development plans have a similar format and methodology, we reviewed one in detail (Cork).

Bus Éireann network planning – Development plan

The Bus Éireann Cork Area Development Plan 2007-2009 was produced as a response to the Bus Éireann Business Plan for socially and economically necessary services of 2005, licence applications for service developments submitted to the Department of Transport in early 2006, and the original Cork area business case of May 2006.

There are a number of key themes in the plan:

Capacity increases – purchase 56 vehicles to give 20% increase for commuter/stage/carriage services and 12% increase for city and suburban services.

Passenger numbers – cater for an additional 4.1 million passenger journeys in first three years.

Modal shift – displace 1 million car journeys p.a. during life of project.

Accessibility – 100% disabled accessibility within one year.

Integration – significantly increase integration with other public transport modes.

Service quality and comfort - significantly increase for new and existing customers.

Reliability – significantly increase level of reliability and service available.

Environment – procurement of Euro 4 vehicles. Also see modal shift target.

Deliverability – oversee expansion of services in an effective and efficient manner.

Five options were considered to meet the targets of the Business Plan, The economic analysis of the preferred option includes a Qualitative Statement and a Scaling Statement. In the qualitative statement, it is stated that the preferred scheme needs to fit in with wider society objectives in the following categories:

National Spatial Strategy

Modal shift

Wider economic objectives

Social inclusion and accessibility objectives

Environmental objectives

Replacement of commuter coach fleet

More widespread and better quality services for customers

Increased reliability

Schools transport

Increased accessibility

Transport integration

The quantitative statement scales from 1 to 5 the following categories:

Economy

Safety

Environment

Accessibility and social inclusion


Integration

The additional number of passengers per new vehicle was calculated by the average occupancy in 2005 multiplied by a defined take up rate of 60%.

For the risk assessment, Bus Éireann stated that the following matters were crucial to deliver on time and on budget:

Must be an immediate and a prolonged financial commitment including a commitment to cover transport cost inflation.

Cost recovery levels remain similar to previous 5 years. Fares to increase in line with inflation.

Bus Éireann assumes revenue risk of proposed developments. However, where licences amount to cherry picking, the state must pick up the revenue shortfall to secondary settlements if these routes are to be maintained. Additional licences also need to be issued to ensure prompt delivery.

Simultaneous bus priority measures need to be introduced.

Speed limit of double deck coaches must be raised from 65 to 80km/h.

Engineering holdings must be increased to reflect increase in services.

Customer and maintenance facilities improvement programmes need to be expanded.

The Cork Area Transport study recommends an additional 75 to 90 buses along with introduction of a BRT corridor from Ballincollig to the Docklands. Various PLUTS updates in Galway, Cork, Limerick, Waterford have recommended fleet and service expansion.

The assessment of development plans for services in the Southern region is largely qualitative. There is no specific mention of risks such as:

Increased fuel costs

Reduced economic activity

Staff shortages

Funding shortfalls

A full cost benefit analysis was undertaken for the business plan covering the Leinster / Eastern region due to the size of investment, in line with Department of Finance capital appraisal guidelines.

While Bus Éireann has a detailed methodology for appraising broader investment schemes, we believe a similar detailed approach should be in place appraising changes at a more tactical level. For example, there may be a number of competing options for services along a corridor, such as:

Higher frequencies;

Route extensions;

Lengthening of the traffic day;

Reliability improvements; and

Other expenditure, such as publicity.

During our case studies it became clear that management have a strong knowledge of the services operated and the benefits they provided. However this knowledge was not always recorded. Whilst cost benefit analysis can be a complex strategic tool, its principles can be adapted for smaller projects.

We believe the company should appraise its routes against key criteria in a structured manner, identifying for example whether the route serves significant employers, hospitals or other health facilities, deprived communities, otherwise isolated communities etc. As noted much of this information is known to key staff, but is not logged in a form which allows appraisal. In a situation where investment or retrenchment decisions are made, easy access to this evidence can add value to an assessment.


Bus Éireann network summary

Guidelines from the Department of Transport as to the policy and objectives of PSO payments will be further strengthened by the provisions of the Dublin Authority Act 2008 which provide for a contract regime for PSO services and for the extension of this regime to outside the Greater Dublin Area later in 2009 under the proposed Public Transport Regulation Bill.

Given the comprehensive and integrated nature of service being offered to the public, we have found Bus Éireann‘s network to be as efficient as its peers. We have not identified material instances of network complexity or cost inefficiency. Bus Éireann have produced strategic plans for each of its operating regions.

The opening of motorways and town bypasses present both opportunities, to introduce new services, and challenges, with competition from private sector express services, for Bus Éireann.

The projected financial deficit will require rationalisation / reduction in services unless additional PSO funding is provided. We recommend that a programme be put in place to assess the detailed cost benefit analysis of services along each corridor before making final decisions on network changes.


3. Operational efficiency

3.1 Operational costs

In 2007, wages and fuel costs made up over 70% of total operational costs for both companies. This is similar to the industry average in the UK. Fuel costs are, to a large extent, outside the control of the companies. The CIE Group have a hedging policy for their fuel requirements, generally covering their requirements for one to two years in advance. Direct wage costs are a factor of the number of buses operated and the levels of pay and conditions. As pay rates are subject to national pay agreements, they are largely outside the control of management. Therefore, overall costs can primarily be controlled by seeking efficiencies in operating the network of services.

Dublin Bus

Wages 68% - € 193.7m Fuel 7% - € 19.3m

Other 20% - € 56.9m Depreciation 6% - € 16.9m

Bus Éireann

Wages 63%- € 130.0m Fuel 8% - € 15.8m

Other 23% - € 47.6m Depreciation 7%- € 13.9m

Figure 3. 1: Dublin Bus/Bus Éireann operating costs in 2007

Source: Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann audited accounts

Wages 68% Fuel 9%

Other 19% Depreciation 4%

Figure 3. 2: UK operating costs in 2006

Source: Bus industry monitor TAS Publications and Events Ltd

Engineering costs, including wages, are broadly similar to peer group operations. Having a relatively young fleet keeps engineering costs low and improves service reliability, accessibility and customer experience. The Companies are investigating the feasibility of contracting certain elements of their engineering functions to reduce costs. They are also exploring the feasibility of night maintenance. However, there are two key constraints;

Lack of space at most garages at night time.

VAT – like all bus operations, the companies are not in a position to reclaim VAT charged by any contracting party.

Our benchmarking analysis indicates that the cost of fleet management is in line with industry norms. A 10-12% spare margin is typical (Dublin Bus 11%). The average age of the city fleets for both companies (c. 6 years) is below the UK average of 8 years. For both companies, administration and


―back office‖ expenses are in line with benchmarks and various cost reduction measures have been completed or are underway.

Wages costs

The companies increase their wage rates in line with National Wage Agreements (NWA). The forecast for 2009 of both companies include an assumption that increases under the new NWA will be paid in accordance with the guidelines for private companies.


Executive 84 Executive/Clerical 384

Clerical 139 Traffic Supervisors 143

Supervisors (traffic) 150 Drviers (FT and PT) 1,887

Drivers 2,865 Supervisors (maintenance) 22

Supervisors (maintenance 59 Eng Ops/Skilled 302

Craftsmen 184 Apprentices 49

Apprentices 33 Other 40

Others 96

Total 3,610 Total 2,827

Table 3. 1: Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann staff numbers

Source: Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann management information

Dublin Bus

Bus Éireann

Figure 3. 3: Dublin Bus/Bus Éireann number of staff

Source: Dublin Bus/Bus Éireann audited accounts 2004 - 2007

3,250 3,300 3,350 3,400 3,450 3,500 3,550 3,600 3,650 3,700

2004 2005 2006 2007 Year

-7.5%

-5.0%

-2.5%

0.0%

2.5%

5.0%

7.5%


2,710

2,720

2,730

2,740

2,750

2,760

2,770

2,780

2,790

2004 2005 2006 2007 Year

-7.5%

-5.0%

-2.5%

0.0%

2.5%

5.0%

7.5%



Both companies carry out network design functions in addition to actual operations. The Bus Éireann figures include management of the schools transport scheme and sub contractors. The 96 ―other‖ staff in Dublin Bus were previously employed as conductors. Dublin Bus state this arises from a Labour Court ruling at the time of the move to one person operated buses.

The number of drivers in both companies in recent years has increased, reflecting an increase in the number of services provided and the implementation of the 48 hour working week Directive.

The Companies anticipate a significant increase in pension costs over the coming years as they each operate defined benefit schemes. An exceptional pension charge of €4.5m and €3.5m for Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann respectively is included in forecasts for 2009.

Fuel costs

Fuel costs have been particularly volatile in recent times. Having peaked at over $120 per barrel earlier this summer, they are now back below $50. The CIE Group has a policy to hedge, where possible, their fuel requirements 18 to 24 months in advance. In recent years, through a rising market, this policy has benefited the Group and kept fuel costs down. However the most recent hedging was at a relatively high price so more recent falls in price will take some time to feed through.

Figure 3. 4: Oil prices (per barrel)

Source: Energy information administration (http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/wtotworldw.htm)

Cost reduction programme

A cost reduction programme, across a number of areas in Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann, is targeting savings of €7.2m and €6.5m for 2008 respectively. However, as this is not sufficient to sustain the financial viability of both companies, we understand that both companies are investigating more substantial cost reduction plans as part of a rationalisation programme to address the forecast deficits.

2008

€m

Claims cost reduction 1.3

Driver efficiencies 2.4

Reduction of administration headcount 0.9

Operating efficiencies 0.6

Mechanical engineering 0.4

Other cost reductions 1.6

Total 7.2

Table 3. 2: Dublin Bus cost reduction programme

Source: Dublin Bus management forecasts 2008

0

20 40

60

80

100 120

140

160

Month Price per barrel


2008

€m

Operations 3.6

Engineering 1.1

Administration 1.4

Claims 0.4

Total 6.5

Table 3. 3: Bus Éireann cost reduction programme

Source: Bus Éireann management forecast 2008

3.2 Scheduling

The design of bus schedules is critical in turning a route and service plan into a deliverable operation. Bus schedules should be led by the requirements of the passenger, whilst meeting legal and efficiency parameters. Operating frequencies should reflect the level of demand at different times of the day, but should not be so low as to involve long waits at bus stops at less busy times. Clockface intervals are advisable, especially for low frequency routes. Bus arrival times on high frequency routes should be timed to be evenly spaced both for passenger convenience and to even out the number of passengers travelling on each bus, to avoid buses travelling in bunches.

In addition to providing information for passengers, bus schedules also provide guidance for drivers and controllers. Schedules should, therefore, reflect typical journey times that vary according to the time of day. They should lean towards the average times that regularly occur, with recovery time at the termini to allow for the regular but unpredictable occurrences of excess journey time. Both early running on low frequency routes and buses making very slow progress on higher frequency routes are of considerable inconvenience for passengers.

Schedules need to be designed over the course of the day with regard for efficient use of bus and driver resources. Driver scheduling is subject to EU regulation and local agreements. The need to take into account staff considerations should not override the ability of the operator to provide a good service to the public.

It is important that routes are reviewed on a regular basis. Monitoring of punctuality and of traffic lost mileage helps identify routes on which revised running times might be required, as does feedback from staff and passengers. Reviewing bus journey times is currently a labour intensive process which will in future benefit from AVL which is currently being implemented.


Dublin bus scheduling Dublin Bus provided bus and driver schedules for the routes which operate from Harristown and Donnybrook garages. In terms of workload, the garages are of similar size. Harristown has 15% more duties than Donnybrook on a Monday to Friday and slightly less at weekends.

Following an initial review of all the schedules, we undertook the following analysis:

A: The schedules for Routes 4 and 4A were analysed fully. These account for 11% of the driver hours at Harristown

B: We analysed ‗out of service‘ running for the Route 40 corridor. Route 40 services account for 7% of the driver hours at Harristown garage. This route was chosen due the fact that the route and depot are geographically separated.

C: We analysed 10% of the peak only services operated from Harristown garage. This was carried out to gain a detailed picture of how these buses are deployed, since peak only services account for 27% of the schedules at Harristown.

D: We analysed Route 46A as an example of how a large, strategically important route is resourced at Donnybrook garage. Route 46A is the most frequent route in Dublin and accounts for 16% of driver duties at the garage. A thorough analysis of bus and driver movements was undertaken, as well as a review of how scheduled journey times vary across the day.

We found scheduling at both garages to be generally efficient when compared to peer operators. In some instances scheduling efficiency had been achieved at the expense of customer service and where improvements and hence cost reductions/efficiencies could be made.

A: Routes 4/A

Route 4 operates from Harristown Garage through Ballymun, Phibsboro, O‘Connell Street, Ballsbridge, to Blackrock. Route 4A extends marginally further on the Southside to Stradbrook. Together they represent 11% of overall driver utilisation at Harristown.

Driving times

On both routes, driving time is a high proportion of paid time1, accounting for 96% on Route 4 and 88%

on Route 4A. The latter is lower as some changeovers take place in the city centre. Efficiency is enhanced due to all driver breaks being unpaid and the adoption of uniform journey times through the day.

The limited ‗out of service‘ operations that exists on this route could be reduced further if two AM and two PM shifts on each route were to be worked from Donnybrook given the proximity of the south city termini to Donnybrook garage. This would result in a more balanced service with respect to northbound and southbound journeys, reducing the need for early morning buses to run empty from Harristown and decreasing the associated cost. Although keeping each route to one depot can make control of the route easier, the same effect can be had by keeping each duty and bus on a route, under the same control, regardless of originating depot.

Demand

On average, just 160 passengers per day are recorded boarding at Harristown on routes 4 and 4A, and some of this is accounted for by drivers travelling to/from the City Centre. The majority of passengers board from Ballymun onwards.

1 Driving time = In service driving time plus scheduled ‗out of service‘ running time. Paid time = Driving time plus

non productive time (e.g. travelling, booking on and off)


Driver breaks

Staff at Harristown depot were involved in industrial action in 2007 over the issue of taking breaks in the city centre. Routes 4/A and 128 were at the centre of the dispute. The issue was resolved by having Routes 4/4A continuing to Harristown, with the drivers on Route 4 taking their breaks at the depot and the drivers on the 4A taking their breaks in the city centre. The Route 4A drivers who finish their duties at the city centre are given a 50 minute paid travelling allowance.

As noted above, very few passengers travel on Route 4/A between Ballymun and Harristown garage. This 15 minute round trip journey occurs 95 times a day, of which only 19 are essential for bus positioning purposes. Total travel time for buses/drivers on this section amounts to 19 hours per day. Dublin Bus should consider rerouting 4/A to turn around at Ballymun rather than Harristown

2 and have

more driver breaks in the city centre.

Journey time

Typically, scheduled journey times for bus routes change at different times of the day to reflect different levels of congestion and average journey times. The graph below indicated that the scheduled running times, Monday to Friday, generally do not change for Routes 4 and 4A.

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

06:00 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00

Time

Avera

ge T

imeta

ble

d J

ourn

ey T

ime

Route 4A

Route 4

Figure 3.5: Dublin Bus Routes 4 and 4A – Average timetabled journey time, Ballymun to Blackrock

Source: Dublin Bus timetable information

In the evening time, the scheduled journey time along Route 4A is reduced. However, to maintain even spaced timings with Route 4, journey times for Route 4 are increased.

The table below indicates examples of when off peak scheduled journey times can equal or exceed peak scheduled journey times.

Service 4 4

Harristown 08:00 21:00

Parnell Sq E 08:40 21:40

Stradbrook - -

Frascatti Centre 09:15 22:20

Parnell Sq W 09:50 22:55


Scheduled round trip time 150 mins 155 mins

Table 3.4: Dublin Bus scheduled timetable extract


2 It should be noted that there are a number of routes that have Harristown as their terminus (Routes 4, 4A, 13,

13A, 27B, 83), all of which have a portion of their route close to Harristown that carries few passengers.


Our analysis has shown that there should be increases to scheduled running times in the peak for Routes 4 and 4A and that there is scope for reducing off-peak journey times. Scheduled journey times during the evening, particularly on Route 4 could be reduced or alternatively, all buses and drivers could work to Stradbrook (terminus for Route 4A) based on current allocated journey times.

B: Routes 40/A/B/C/D

The 40 series operates between Finglas and Parnell Square, with the 40D extending westward towards Tyrrelstown. Together the services represent 7% of driver utilisation at Harristown garage.

Finglas is a moderate sized town in the north-west suburbs of Dublin. It is served by a number of routes which traverse the north of the city as well as by the 40 series of routes which operate along the Finglas Road from the city centre and diverge into a number of branches near Finglas. In the afternoon peak hour (17:00-18:00 from city) there are 17 departures, 5 each on 40 and 40A, 1 on 40B, 2 on 40C and 4 on 40D. Off peak there tends to be 10 or 11 departures per hour with typically 4 each on the 40 and 40A and generally one or two trips per hour on 40B, 40C or 40D. Journey times are typically scheduled at 35-45 minutes (60 minutes on the 40D).

The 40 series represents a significant allocation of resources – 110 drivers‘ duties per week and a Peak Vechicel Requirement (PVR) of 28, including the support from six Euro duties. The route is operated from Harristown garage (around 15 minutes travelling time from Finglas termini).

Driver breaks

When a driver books on/off or takes a break, he or she generally drives their bus between the garage and Finglas. This journey is allocated 15 minutes (or 30 minutes for Route 40D). A number of drivers also travel to/from the city centre – a journey of 30 minutes. In total, this means that a driver can spend well over an hour a day driving while not in passenger service.

The route is rostered and scheduled with a combined block of work on one sub-route and then on another sub-route after a break. This results in buses making a relatively large number of long ‗out of service‘ journeys. An analysis of the Monday to Friday bus schedules showed the following results per day.

Route Time in service (hours) „Out of service‟ running (hours) % „Out of service‟ running

40 76.0 15.8 17%

40A 78.3 17.3 18%

40B 19.8 4.6 19%

40D 81.3 23.7 23%

Total 255.5 61.3 20%

Table 3.5: Dublin Bus „out of service‟ journeys


An analysis of operations at various garages in the UK shows that ‗out of service‘ mileage is typically between 3% and 10%.

Drivers on a Monday to Friday duty are in passenger service for only 76.3% of their time. This includes the effect of an average 20 minute overpayment due to the average length of work being less than the 7h38 paid daily amount.

Scheduling driver breaks in the city centre could reduce ‗out of service‘ running on the route significantly.

Where a duty both starts and finishes in the city centre, the use of existing facilities for drivers to sign on and off locally rather than at the garage could potentially reduce the number of bus movements.

For journeys which start or finish in Finglas, a small fleet of ferry vehicles could be used to transport drivers to and from the route at changeover times. This system is regularly used in the UK. In addition


to reducing the number of buses required, the fuel consumption of the ferry vehicles (which are typically cars or vans) is considerably lower than that of a bus.

C: Euro/Universal duties (27% of the schedules at Harristown)

Euro and Universal buses provide peak capacity. Euro duties use buses part funded by the European Union for the purpose in 1999/2000 whilst Universal buses may also operate on industrial estate services and school services.

110 duties at Harristown and 43 duties from Donnybrook are Universal / Euro duties and they represent a significant investment in resources.

The buses / drivers spend an average of just 4.25 hours in passenger service, a significant proportion of which is travelling contra-peak on routes towards Harristown garage. The drivers have an average paid day of around 7.5 hours and an average unpaid break approaching four hours in duration. The length of unpaid break is high by industry standards.

The duties typically involve 2 journeys along main routes in the AM peak and two in the PM peak. Most Harristown buses operate some distance from Harristown garage and the buses based there spend a considerable time travelling to the start of their route. The requirement to get back to Harristown to take a break combined with a condition that all split shift duties finish within 12 hours of starting means that the buses often start leaving service shortly after 18:00 and do not support the full length of the PM peak.

Driver duties

The 12 hour shift limit causes difficulties for Dublin Bus to meet pm peak demand. However, if these duties were integrated into the basic schedules for the routes concerned, the 12 hour limit could be managed to avoid the aforementioned issue. This could be achieved by a driver working a Euro duty in the morning and a main roster duty in the afternoon to finish within 12 hours, whilst a colleague works a main roster duty in the morning and a Euro in the afternoon to finish later.

Garage location

Capacity issues at other garages has lead to Harristown operating Euro buses on services that might otherwise run from other depots, resulting in counter peak in service or ‗out of service‘ trips back to Harristown garage. There are two possible opportunities to address this – the potential opening of a new garage at Grangecastle and space which may become available at other depots through service rationalisation. The precedent of disturbance payments, where drivers are asked to change route or garage base, may mean any benefit from a move only materialises in the medium term.

D: Route 46A corridor

Route 46A was analysed as an example of how large, strategically important routes are resourced from older and more established depots such as Donnybrook. Route 46A is Dublin‘s most frequent route. A thorough review of bus and driver movements was undertaken, as well as how scheduled journey times vary across the day. We also looked at how the Euro and Universal buses resourced from a number of depots are used to provide peak enhancements on the Route 46A corridor.

Route 46A operates between Dun Laoghaire and Mountjoy Square via Foxrock, Stillorgan, Donnybrook, St. Stephen‘s Green and O‘Connell Street. Route 46A schedules cover the core 46A service and part of Route 46B. Other variations of the 46A route are covered by Euros and Universals from Donnybrook. Its schedules also cover part of Route 46B (Sandford Industrial Estate) and make up 16% of driver duties at Donnybrook. Other variations of the 46 group are covered by Euro and Universal duties from Donnybrook.

Our analysis consisted of calculating the time spent by drivers and buses operating in service, time spent operating ‗out of service‘ mileage and time spent on other activities. We also considered the levels of overtime paid to drivers and how breaks were arranged and to what extend these are appropriate.

The Route 46A corridor operates along the Stillorgan QBC. It has a core PVR of 21 excluding Euro duties and a staff requirement of 305 duties per week. There is also is a significant enhancement from


Euro and Universal buses: 93 journeys are operated by Euro/ Universal buses in the AM peak and 75 in the PM peak.

This route is rostered efficiently, with drivers spending 90% of their paid time driving buses in passenger service by following the same roster pattern as the majority of other routes in Dublin. Each bus spends 20-30 minutes travelling to either the city centre or Dun Laoghaire at the start and end of its day. However, the first bus from Dun Laoghaire doesn‘t arrive in the city centre until 07:30. The shift pattern on a Sunday means that the first bus doesn‘t arrive in the city centre until 10:30.

The scheduling of Route 46A reflects changes in journey time throughout the day. This allows two buses to come ‗out of service‘ in the inter-peak period while maintaining a relatively consistent service for customers.

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

07:30 08:30 09:30 10:30 11:30 12:30 13:30 14:30 15:30 16:30 17:30 18:30 19:30 20:30 21:30

Times

Averg

ae T

imeta

ble

d J

ourn

ey T

ime

Figure 3.6: Dublin Bus Route 46A – Average timetabled journey time (Round trip)


The scheduling of Route 46A reflects changes in journey time throughout the day, which allows two buses to come ‗out of service‘ in the inter-peak period while maintaining a relatively consistent service for customers.

Work practices

Scheduling efficiency and service delivery are inextricably linked to work practices within the company. Dublin Bus work practices are flexible in many areas, for example, unpaid breaks and the length of split shift duties enable efficient driver deployment in the majority of cases. We identified the following areas where additional work practice flexibility could be pursued.

Harristown

The Harristown garage was built with Exchequer funding, to provide facilities for 150 additional state funded buses with a capacity for a further 200 buses. The garage opened in October 2004 and since opening there have been ongoing discussions regarding scheduling arrangements.

A dispute arose in 2007 surrounding the location of driver breaks and changeovers for Routes 4, 4A and 128. Following extensive negotiations and a week long strike by drivers, agreement was eventually reached through the Labour Court as follows:

No existing routes at Harristown would have breaks outside of the garage for at least 3 years, and thereafter only by agreement with the union;

Drivers provided with 50 minutes paid travel time, in each direction, for city centre changeover for Route 4A and 55 minutes for Route 128,

Dublin Bus will invite drivers from outside Harristown to work on Routes 4A and 128

Only recently recruited drivers will be asked to operate Route 4A and 128


Our scheduling analysis identifies possible efficiencies to be gained from city centre breaks on other routes based in Harristown, which the company needs to pursue in the interest of greater efficiency/cost savings given the challenges facing the company.

„Marked In Drivers‟ and disturbance payments

Upon joining, drivers in Dublin Bus can be assigned to work on any route in the garage where they are based, but typically after four to seven years they are 'marked in' to a single route, working on a five week rota which is reserved for the more experienced drivers. Approximately 60% of the workforce is marked in at any time.

Dedicating drivers to particular routes tends to be advantageous in terms of increasing familiarity with the route and passengers. In efficiency terms we believe that such rosters work well where there are at least 8 buses allocated to the route. This gives sufficient volume of duty segments to allow efficient duty compilation. Where routes have fewer vehicles, our experience is that the schedules become less efficient. In such cases, greater efficiency is achieved if drivers operate more than one route.

The lack of flexibility when a driver becomes ‗marked in‘ can lead to certain inefficiencies even for routes with a high number of buses allocated to them. As an example, our analysis of Route 4/A indicates;

A lack of driver cross over between Route 4 and Route 4A results in drivers taking breaks without reaching their required driving hours.

Inefficient evening time operations.

Disturbance Payments have been made to drivers as compensation for changes to their ‗marked in‘ route or if they move from one garage to another. They have been included in Labour Court recommendations. Such payments are not common within the bus industry. Approximately €2.5m has been paid to drivers in the last 4 years, the majority of which relates to the opening of Harristown garage, examples include:

€‟000

Drivers moving to Harristown 1,900

Drivers moving from Harristown 135

Moving terminus for some Tallaght services (Eden Quay to Ringsend) 269

Merging of routes 15B & 15C 52

Table 3. 6: Dublin Bus disturbance payments in last 4 years

Source: Dublin Bus management

Based on our general analysis and specifically with reference to the Finglas corridor, we believe there is significant potential for network redesign. The precedent of disturbance payments, if continued, will increase the up front costs of any network changes.


Bus Éireann scheduling Bus Éireann provided bus and driver schedules for the routes which operate from Broadstone, Dundalk and Cork garages for the purposes of our analysis.

Scheduling duties efficiently can be more difficult for longer distance services. There are both geographic and temporal reasons for this. The main geographical factors are the location of the bus garage in relation to the routes it supplies, and location of the bus turnaround at the end of the route. The distance involved in travelling to and from the garage to the route (‗out of service‘ mileage) might be substantial, although is likely to occur only a few times a day. There is also the potential for ‗out of service‘ mileage to accrue if a bus needs to drive to stand some distance away from the final stop on a route, or has to traverse a large loop to turn around. The main temporal factor that affects efficiency is the need for operating staff to take breaks. As the Company continues to implement the EU Working Time Directive, the cost base may increase.

We set out below a brief synopsis of services and schedules operated by Bus Éireann.

Town services

Bus services in towns such as Cork, Drogheda and Dundalk are characterised by short length routes (journey times of 20 to 30 minutes) and medium to high frequencies (every 30 minutes or better). Routes provide both radial and orbital links, and often serve a central bus station. High levels of commuter usage result in additional journeys at peak times.

Journey times can be expected to be higher during peak times, and there will be some variability of journey times during day to day operations. Layover times are scheduled at the end of routes to facilitate punctual departures from termini, as expected.

Few routes are very far from the bus garage and therefore dead mileage tends to be relatively low. Driver changeovers can be scheduled at either termini or whilst the bus is in service, thus allowing shift lengths to be matched with driver duty lengths and maximising driver efficiency.

Rural services

Rural services provide links between villages and small towns and link them to larger towns nearby. They provide low frequency journeys which are timed to meet passenger demand. Journey times vary from 30 minutes to as much as 2.5 hours. The variability of journey times is fairly low, although layovers tend to be high, primarily to allow buses to depart when required. Some routes operate seasonal timetables.

Intercity services

Intercity routes provide express long distance journeys between large towns and cities, occasionally stopping at intermediate points. Journey times vary between two and five hours, and frequencies are typically between hourly and every two hours. Duplicate journeys are a common occurrence to cater for excess demand at peak times (including Friday afternoon), and variable high demand sections along the route that arise on an ongoing basis.

There are typically garages at each end of the route, and sometimes along the route, which means that dead mileage can be minimised. However, the different running times of different routes, and the long distances involved, means that efficient driver scheduling is more difficult to achieve. Unpredictable journey times, particularly near Dublin, mean that buses require longer layovers to ensure punctuality.


Commuter services

Commuter services combine features of the other three service types. Commuter services are operated into all the National Spatial Strategy gateway cities (including Dublin, Cork, Galway, Limerick and Waterford) in line with the National Spatial Strategy, Regional Planning Guidelines and PLUTS studies. They cater for journey lengths of some 60 to 90 minutes with frequencies that are hourly or better. Additional journeys are provided at peak times to cater for heavy commuter flows.

Where there are garages at both ends of a route, ‗out of service‘ mileage is less likely to arise. Route lengths are also sufficiently short that efficient rostering is possible. In order to maintain clockface departures it is appropriate that medium length layovers are in place.

Schedule review

Following an initial review of all the schedules provided by Bus Éireann, we analysed the following:

Approximately 11% of the schedules for Cork were analysed in detail. Cork operates city routes, rural routes and express to Dublin, and all were examined as part of this process.

Commuter services from Broadstone, as they are by far the most dominant use of both vehicles and drivers at the garage.

Dundalk, Drogheda and Balbriggan services.

A summary of our findings are set out below:

Bus Éireann Southern Region

Driver duties in Cork are split into two broad categories. City duties operate the higher frequency services in and around Cork; provincial duties operate the rural services in the surrounding regions as well as express services to Dublin. There are also ‗relief‘ duties that support these two roles. ‗Relief‘ duties can serve more than one route, geographic area or type of service.

City services

City services provide a frequent cross-city service to the suburbs of Cork with a typical journey time of 25 minutes from the city centre to the end of the route and a service interval of between 10 and 20 minutes.

All city routes except for Route 1 have their own base rota whereby drivers are allocated to a specific route and drive duties on an indefinite fixed rotation. However, they do share duties between each other. To understand how the city services are resourced, we examined one of the larger routes, Route 2, in detail.

Route 2 has a 20 line roster with 100 duties of which 12 are duties on other city routes, such as Route 4; whilst five duties are operated on Route 2 by drivers on other routes‘ rotas. This is an efficient means of balancing longer duties over different rotas, ensuring that the roster has full lines, i.e. the number of days of work matches up with the number of drivers.

On some routes, relief drivers drive a duty normally performed by a driver on the base roster and this forms part of the timetabled service. In addition, relief drivers drive a small number of additional services at peak times and these do not appear on the public timetable.

A detailed analysis of the duties performed by buses and drivers on Route 2 showed that:

buses spend on average 13h35m on the road, of which 94% was spent in passenger service;

the average length of a drivers‘ day was 8h21m, of which 7h00m was spent at the wheel and 6h47m in passenger service. The remainder comprises unpaid breaks and ‗out of service‘ journeys. Altogether, drivers spend 91.5% of their paid time in passenger service;

the average break was 0h56m.

A 10-minute walking allowance applies if drivers finish their shift in the city centre. 10 minutes is allowed for signing on and off which is comparable to other operators.


Rural services

We studied a corridor focused upon the southwest corner of County Cork between Castletownbere, Goleen, Drimoleague and Cork which is served by Routes 236, 237, 239, 251 and seasonal Route 252.

The majority of services on the 236 are operated by dedicated drivers rather than relief drivers.

Rotas tend to be small, with around one to four drivers. A number of drivers and their vehicles are based at outposts – four at Bandon, two at Bantry, one at Glengarriff, one at Goleen and three at Skibbereen. Often the main rota drivers get paid overtime and spend some time either on call or waiting for the next service – this can be a reasonably efficient way of allocating work if the service matches with peaks in demand. Some relief drivers are also scheduled on these routes.

A sample of 10 schedules (7 main rota and 3 reliefs) showed:

The average paid time for drivers is 8h28m. Of this, 5h55m is spent driving in passenger service, representing 70% of paid hours. These figures are comparable to rural services operated by other operators where timings are determined by passenger demand rather than operational convenience.

Average unpaid breaks are 1h24m for relief drivers and 2h06m for main roster drivers. Long unpaid breaks significantly increase the efficiency with which drivers can be deployed.

On average, drivers spend 37 minutes per day either on stand or waiting for instruction from controllers. This is low by comparison to other operators and is a benefit of the long unpaid breaks.

An analysis of vehicle usage showed that vehicles spend an average of 12h26m per day in service. ‗Out of service‘ running accounts for 13% of the time buses spend on the move.

Intercity services

Cork is served by the five ‗Expressway‘ services.

Route 40 and Route 8 were examined in detail.

Route 40 entails a 7 hour journey and is split into three sections: Tralee (via Rathmore or Ballyvourney) to Cork (2h30 / 2h15); Cork to Waterford (2h15), and Waterford to Rosslare (1h25m) with breaks of 20-35 minutes between each section and uniform running time. Some passengers making through journeys need to change buses.

Analysis of the schedules of 10 Route 40 drivers showed:

The average spread time is 8h56m, with 7h51m of this paid.

The average duty involves 28 minutes of driving ‗out of service‘ and 1h27m on stand, representing 6% and 17% of paid time respectively.

The average driver spends 5h29m in service, 70% of paid time.

Relief drivers on Route 40 also work suburban services around Cork during early mornings and late evenings and during the evening peak – an efficient way of rostering services since current running times make staffing only the 40 inefficient due to the 2h15m / 2h30m running time.

Drivers on Route 8 operate one trip to Dublin and back giving 8h50m in service (including a 15 minute break at Urlingford) with a 1h25m break at Dublin.

An analysis of the six express coaches starting the day from Cork garage showed that they spend an average time in service of 10h36 minutes. The time spent on stand between operating services is 2h45 on average. These figures compare favourably with those of long distance bus operations in the UK. The time spent on stand, which is waiting time either in the depot or at other termini, reflects the need for buses to adhere to a low frequency timetable.


Bus Éireann eastern region

Commuter Route 109

Route 109 is a ‗suburban/regional‘ service operating between Dublin and Cavan, also serving Dunshaughlin, Navan, Kells and Virginia. There are 4 departures per hour from Dublin, with various journeys scheduled to turn short of Cavan. There are a few additional duplicating journeys at peak periods as well as night buses at 00:30 and 03:30 on a Friday and Saturday night. Buses depart Dublin between 05:20 and 23:00 and arrive into Dublin arriving between 07:10 until 00:10, with the frequency reducing to hourly after around 1900.

The majority of drivers stay with their buses all day rather than swapping buses between breaks. This results in 3-4 buses at a time not being utilised for 45 minutes or more during the period 08:00 to 09:00. Many of these buses, but not all, run ‗out of service‘ between Busáras and Broadstone due to the lack lay-by facilities at Busáras. This accounts for 10.6% of scheduled hours for buses.

The timetable includes recovery time between journeys, and between journeys and breaks, accounting for 20.4% of the scheduled hours for buses. Unlike other low frequency routes, Route 109 has sufficient driver and bus duties (24 driver duties per day and 14 bus duties per day) to potentially improve efficiency in this area. Regular, detailed monitoring of journey times is recommended as it would allow a more accurate and potentially efficient schedule to be drawn up. The rollout of AVL systems during 2009 will facilitate this.

Commuter Routes 100, 101, 100X

These routes provide both local and express services between Dublin, Drogheda and Dundalk. Route 100 provides the local services between Drogheda and Dundalk (a 40 minute journey) and Route 101 between Dublin and Drogheda (80 minutes). Route 100X provides an express service between Dublin and Dundalk (1h35m, 4 stops).

Route 100X has 45 minutes of recovery time at both ends of the route, which is a high percentage in relation to the overall running time of 95 minutes. When drivers have a scheduled break, they take 45 minutes during a turnaround. This has the benefit that no other driver is required to cover breaks (improving scheduling efficiency). However, this also means that there is effectively no recovery time on a trip and so the subsequent journey might run late.

Route 100 has 25 minutes of recovery time at Dundalk and five minutes at Drogheda. Route 101 has ten minutes of recovery time at both ends of the route and drivers pass on their bus to another driver to have a break of thirty minutes.

Although an initial analysis might suggest that the three routes have unnecessarily high levels of recovery time, this occurs due to the nature of their geographical coverage and journey time lengths.

Dublin Broadstone and Busáras

The vast majority of Bus Éireann services run to / from Busáras central bus station. Those not running to Busáras run to either St Stephen‘s Green or Belfield. Scheduled journey time between Busáras and Broadstone is 15 minutes. Many buses, particularly on suburban routes travel to Broadstone between journeys so that drivers can take their break and to provide recovery time between journeys. Intercity type services tend to take their breaks and recovery times at Busáras.

This ‗out of service‘ running between Broadstone and Busáras can be a significant portion of overall ‗out of service‘ running for a route, for example it accounts for 44% of ‗out of service‘ running on the Route 109 which itself accounts for 10.4% of paid driver time.

Some layovers of several hours take place at Busáras whilst layovers of less than an hour take place at Broadstone. The optimum use of the limited lay-by facilities at Busáras should be studied by the company. We suggest exploring the following options to minimise the occurrence of journeys between Busáras and Broadstone;

Use of alternative lay-by locations closer to Busáras. (We understand that Bus Éireann are actively investigating the use of CIE lands in the vicinity of Connolly Station for this purpose)


Employing a ‗stepping-back‘ process so that when drivers take their breaks, their vehicle is passed on to another driver in order to reduce the amount of time that buses need to layover. These breaks could be taken at Busáras.

Terminating certain routes at other city centre locations. This is already in place with some suburban / regional services at peak hours

Drogheda, Dundalk and Balbriggan services

Rural services: The vehicle and driver requirement is determined by the school and college journeys and a journey to work into the local town in the morning and out again in the evening with other journeys in the interpeak operated within the margins of the peak vehicle and driver resource. Many routes are operated within the spread of one driver‘s shift, as would normally be best practice for this type of service.

Drogheda and Dundalk town services: The town services for Drogheda and Dundalk in the main are operated to an interval pattern (hourly or half hourly) with the same bus and driver with cover for breaks and certain early morning or evening journey being covered in the margin of rural route drivers. These services are resourced efficiently given the constraints of the timetable requirement.

Balbriggan town service: The 20 minute frequency Balbriggan town service requires two drivers for the one vehicle because of its spread and remoteness from a depot (Broadstone). It also has no identified break cover for two mid morning and two afternoon trips and transport for the afternoon driver to relieve the morning driver appears to be a staff car from Dublin. An option to consider for improved efficiency for this service would be to resource the service from Drogheda. Drogheda is much closer to Balbrigggan than Dublin both in distance and journey time. The reduction in bus mileage and in particular drivers hours would reduce the spread hours required to cover the service.

Strategic opportunities for Bus Éireann In light of the deteriorating financial situation facing the company, due to falling passenger numbers and increasing costs, Bus Éireann will need to assess strategic opportunities:

Subcontracting services to other operators

Integration with Rural Transportation Programme

Integration with Health Service Executive requirements

Harmonisation of vehicle types, such as the replacement of tail lift fitted minibuses with low floor vehicles has enabled such integration to take place in the UK with demand responsive transport, patient transport services, social services day car transport and low volume schools transport sometimes integrated into a single resource pool by the more proactive local authorities. A single resource pool, incorporating brokerage where required, can allow sectors with differing mandates to work together to maximise the benefit from these resources.

Sub-contracting

Bus Éireann uses sub-contracting to cover PVRs and maintain timetables where congestion has caused delays to services. In the face of falling passenger numbers, Bus Éireann intend reducing the current level of sub-contracting.

There is potential for alternative roles for sub-contracting within the main network, whereby entire services are contracted out to smaller operators who may be able to operate at a lower cost than a large operator such as Bus Éireann. Key concerns for Bus Éireann in expanding sub-contracting are safety standards and the need for an agreed framework for operating and maintenance practices. We recommend that Bus Éireann identify clusters of routes on a rolling basis and seek private sector tenders to operate these routes. These can then be assessed against an internal benchmark, to see if sub-contracting can reduce costs.

The expansion of subcontracting has a number of potential challenges:


Part of the current low cost base may be because operators on commuter service charge on a marginal basis using a vehicle which is otherwise occupied during the day: costs may rise if a dedicated vehicle is used, though this could provide an operator with a more guaranteed income stream than traditional ad-hoc private work.

Market forces may influence prices where there would be little competition for the work.

Individual relations issues.

Opportunities should be identified in a logical and structured manner. Bundles of services should be tested against the market by seeking prices from possible sub contractors. This would be compared to the cost of continued in house operation and from this a short list of subcontracted routes would be drawn up and the tender process taken forward.

The short listing process needs to assess the direct costs and the opportunity cost or benefit. For example a basket of services in one particular area may allow a reduction in overheads through the closure of a depot facility, even if the direct costs generate a lower saving than a diverse group of services across a region.

Strategically this would assist the wider economy as smaller operators are liable to be suffering due to the economic down turn.

Rural transportation programme

The Rural Transport Initiative (RTI) arose from a commitment in the National Development Plan 2000-2006 to provide funding for the development of pilot public transport initiatives in rural areas. The aim of this funding was ‗to encourage innovative community based initiatives to provide public transport services in rural areas with a view to addressing social exclusion in rural Ireland caused by lack of access to transport‘. The RTI operated as a very successful pilot action research initiative between 2002 and 2006.

A new Rural Transport Programme (RTP) was launched in February 2007. The RTP is building on the success of the RTI and puts the former pilot scheme on a permanent mainstreamed basis, with significantly increased funding. It continues the recognition that local communities are best placed to identify their rural transport needs and to address them. Consequently, approved rural community transport groups will continue to have primary responsibility for initiating, developing, organising and delivering transport services funded under the RTP.

The broad aims of the programme are:

To provide, enhance and sustain a nationwide community based public transport system in rural areas.

To maximise existing transport assets and to utilise new technology where necessary in the co-ordination and development of transport.

To act as a catalyst in providing models of partnership at all levels where key sectors actively engage in transport provision.

To ensure equality of access for all, including older people as well as people with mobility, sensory and cognitive impairments.

To maintain, promote and develop models of good practice.

To continue to contribute to rural public transport policy.

This programme facilitates structural integration with other transport services. There is the potential, for example, to link school operations to RTI services and greater connectivity could be achieved through integrated planning, whether led by or facilitated by Bus Éireann.


With suitable multi purpose vehicles3, CT operators could become subcontractors on conventional bus

services and add value by operating these on a more flexible basis.

Health Service Executive

Movement of outpatients to/from appointments is generally an off peak transport requirement and is often achieved by use of taxis or dedicated non emergency ambulance minibuses. Bus Éireann have indicated that in many cases conventional bus services with wheelchair access (large and midi bus) could be used where taxis are currently used

Integrating this provision into a wider transport resource bank may lead to efficiencies both in public transport, schools transport and health transport.

Scheduling summary

Scheduling at Dublin Bus is generally efficient. However on occasion, scheduling efficiency is achieved at the expense of meaningful services to the customer.

Our report identifies some potential efficiencies for the routes and schedules studied in detail.

A number of work practices exist at Dublin Bus that may restrict the ability of the company to make changes in a timely manner. The precedent of disturbance payments may increase the associated cost of network redesign.

The use of Harristown garage for a number of peak only services is inefficient. The duties of split shift drivers should be incorporated into general schedules to better meet peak demand.

Scheduling at Bus Éireann is also generally efficient.

The significant deterioration in the financial position of Bus Éireann due to falling passenger numbers and increasing costs may require service rationalisation in the absence of increased PSO revenue. Any rationalisation plan should take into account:

Opportunities to combine dedicated services (e.g. schools, RTP and conventional bus)

Subcontracting of entire services to the private sector operator

Potential expansion of double deck operation where regular peak demand exceeds the capacity of standard sized coaches

3 The Department will examine the question of harmonising the Construction and Use Regulations so that the

same passenger vehicle can be used for both commercial and non-commercial purposes. This would remove the anomaly whereby vehicles owned by charitable or statutory organisations can use any seating configuration on their vehicles whereas a vehicle used for commercial or for reward purposes, even if that reward is not-for-profit, must comply with PSV regulations. Harmonisation of the Construction and Use Regulations would also address other issues which require resolution in order to enable any passenger vehicle to be used for both commercial and non-commercial purposes, thus improving the safety of the public and voluntary transport fleet and enabling brokerage opportunities to be created. Source: http://www.transport.ie/upload/general/transport_access_05.htm


4. Issues affecting both companies

4.1 Reliability of network and services

Public transport customer surveys have consistently rated reliability/punctuality as an important factor for users.

Monitoring services: Transport for London example

The level of service monitoring undertaken by TfL reflects the importance of the service ultimately delivered to the customer.

TfL reliability monitoring

TfL measures bus reliability in terms of Quality of Service Indicators (QSIs), a system which endeavours to measure reliability as experienced by passengers waiting at bus stops. There are two types of measurement, depending on whether a route operates on a low frequency (every 15 minutes or less) or on a high frequency (every 12 minutes or better).

Many passengers using a low frequency route will have a good idea of when the next bus is due to arrive and will arrive at the bus stop in the expectation of catching a particular departure. As a result, reliability is assessed in terms of ‗on time‘ performance. In terms of QSIs, a bus is assumed to have arrived on time if it arrives within a window of 2 minutes before or 5 minutes after the scheduled time.

When using high frequency routes, passengers tend not to consult a timetable but instead turn up at the bus stop in the expectation that a bus will arrive shortly. In order to measure this type of usage, excess wait time (EWT) is used. It is calculated by measuring the difference between actual waiting times against scheduled waiting times.

To measure both types of routes, TfL uses observers with handheld computers deployed at key points along the route. Shifts normally last 2.5 or 3 hours and are scheduled to occur on a randomised basis between 07:00 and 21:30 on weekdays, 10:00 and 17:00 on Saturdays and 14:00 to 17:00 on Sundays. Nightbuses are also monitored between 00:00 and 05:30.

There are 250 locations and each location has at least 16 observations during a quarter. QSIs are calculated for each route every 4 weeks, with data for each route published on the TfL website every quarter.

The QSI system was originally introduced in the 1970s as a management information tool. Since 2001, reliability data has been used to incentivise operator performance through the use of quality incentive contracts.

The manual system of observations is due to be replaced by a GPS based one shortly.

TfL mystery traveller surveys

TfL uses an agency to carry out mystery shopper style surveys. Trained surveyors, who travel incognito, assess measures such as vehicle cleanliness, quality of bus blinds, ride quality, driver presentation and the presence of etching and graffiti. The results are sent to bus operators every quarter. The results of the surveys can determine whether an operator will be allowed an extension of a contract from 5 to 7 years.

TfL other monitoring

Driver Quality Monitoring is carried out on behalf of TfL by the Driving Standards Agency. A large number of criteria are examined during each assessment, including acceleration, cornering, braking, speed, anticipation, and how close to the kerb a bus stops. Examiners also look out for behaviour which is considered dangerous, such as using a mobile phone or driving with the doors open.

Inspections of vehicle quality are carried out on behalf of TfL by engineers from the Freight Transport


Association.

Operators submit their own returns of kilometres not operated due to reasons such as traffic, driver shortage and mechanical reasons. TfL carries out detailed audits of operators to ensure the accuracy of the lost kilometres reporting procedure.

Wheelchair ramp availability – TfL introduced surveys of wheelchair ramp availability to address public concerns about non working ramps.

Customer Satisfaction Surveys – passengers are asked to rate a number of categories of bus services similar to those assessed with Mystery Traveller Surveys.

Dublin Bus Dublin benefits from QBCs, but still suffers from serious traffic congestion, especially in the city centre. Customer perceptions of poor reliability and punctuality are in part due to the structure of the services and the information available to customers. In most cases:

Intermediate running times are not specified so that drivers are not regulated along the route, meaning that gaps may widen or narrow along the journey.

Passengers have no access to scheduled departure times other than those of buses leaving at the termini, which may be a considerable distance away from where the passenger is actually waiting.

End to end journey times on some routes investigated show a much smaller than expected variation between peak and inter peak journey times.

RTPI is not currently available at bus stops (although plans are in place to introduce this)

Running times

We believe there is a strong case for restructuring timetables to address the above issues by including running times at intermediate points.

The provision of intermediate running times could achieve three key objectives:

Passengers would be more assured of the intended time of departure.

Drivers would be able to monitor their own progress against schedule and advise controllers of delays.

Controllers may be able to pinpoint problems sooner than otherwise as they can identify vehicle delays earlier.

There are a number of challenges in designing an optimum timetable. It must not be timed so fast as to be unachievable, or to slow as to risk early running or frequent time waiting. Seasonal variability is also an issue, though there is the potential to adopt variable timetables as undertaken in a handful of UK cities (Sheffield and Manchester for example) and in some other European cities. These involve either a reduction in peak capacity to cope with lower loads during the summer holidays or a reduction in running time during periods of low congestion.

Dublin Bus has expressed concerns regarding the feasibility of introducing intermediate running times. However, intermediate times have been successfully introduced in other heavily congested cities. Running times should be calculated around typical trips, rather than extreme ones to minimise early running and appropriate layover time inserted at the termini to reduce the chance of late running buses departing late in the opposite direction.


Route 4 example

We have analysed the current running times of several services by using ticket machine data. Running times are unpredictable, especially in the city centre.

Figure 4.1 shows the morning peak running times on service 4 from Ballymun towards Blackrock. Immediately apparent is the O‘Connell Street fare stage which shows a range of journey times from 6 to 22 minutes with an average of 13 minutes. A range of 16 is poor, but this is compounded by the mean running time being almost equidistant from the extremes. This implies that variability is high

4

and, therefore, intervals at successive stops will also be affected, impacting on passengers along the remainder of the route.

0

5

10

15

20

25

Bally

mun R

oad (S

antry

Avenue)

Bally

mun R

d. (G

lasnevin

Ave.)

Bally

mun R

oad (T

he R

ise)

Bota

nic

Avenue.

Hart's

Corn

er

Phib

sboro

Shoppin

gC

entre

Bro

adsto

ne

Ble

ssin

gto

n S

t.

O'C

onnell S

treet

Merrio

n S

quare

Mount S

t. (Holle

s S

t.)

North

um

berla

nd

Rd.(H

addin

gto

n R

d

Pem

bro

ke R

oad

Stages

Journ

ey T

ime b

etw

een s

tages (M

inute

s)

Run mean (min)

Best Run

Worst Run

Figure 4. 1: Dublin Bus: Service 4 towards Blackrock – Morning peak sectional journey times


This impact becomes clear from Figure 4.2. This shows the average observed waiting time at each fare stage. The dark blue line for the morning peak shows that early on in the route buses are close to the 10 minute scheduled wait time, but gradually become further away from it. Reference to the Figure 4.2 shows a wide range of running times at ―Ballymun Road (The Rise)‖ and this is where the average wait time increases. This then becomes perpetual. As the interval widens more passengers are waiting at the stops, boarding takes longer and the bus becomes more and more delayed. By O‘Connell Street, the average wait time has reached 13.5 minutes.

The unpredictability in the city centre then causes the delays to accumulate and the average waiting times to rise. Inter peak performance improves with a largely level line from Ballymun to city – though still above the scheduled 10 minutes. O‘Connell Street remains a significant source of delay. Average waiting times is longest in the evening peak.

4 If an average was closer to either extreme the implication is that one pattern is more common than the other.


Service 4 to Blackrock Average Wait Time (main section)

0

5

10

15

20

25

Bally

mun R

oad (S

antry

Avenue)

Bally

mun R

d. (G

lasnevin

Ave.)

Bally

mun R

oad (T

he R

ise)

Bota

nic

Avenue.

Hart's

Corn

er

Phib

sboro

Shoppin

gCentre

Bro

adsto

ne

Ble

ssin

gto

n S

t.

O'C

onnell S

treet

Merrio

n S

quare

Mount S

t. (Holle

s S

t.)

North

um

berla

nd

Rd.(H

addin

gto

n R

d

Pem

bro

ke R

oad

Stages

Avera

ge W

aitin

g T

imes

AM Peak Wait Inter Peak Wait

PM Peak Wait Scheduled Wait

Figure 4. 2: Dublin Bus: Service 4 towards Blackrock – Morning peak sectional average wait times journey times


Figure 4.2 shows the peak versus inter peak journey time variations. The main impacts other than the city centre (in this direction) are at Ballymun in the morning peak and leaving the city in the afternoon peak. Morning peak average times from Ballymun Road to O‘Connell Street are 45 minutes compared to 37 minutes in the inter peak

Service 4 to Blackrock running time variations

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Bally

mun R

oad (S

antry

Avenue)

Bally

mun R

d. (G

lasnevin

Ave.)

Bally

mun R

oad (T

he

Ris

e)

Bota

nic

Avenue.

Hart's

Corn

er

Phib

sboro

Shoppin

gC

entre

Bro

adsto

ne

Ble

ssin

gto

n S

t.

O'C

onnell S

treet

Merrio

n S

quare

Mount S

t. (Holle

s S

t.)

North

um

berla

nd

Rd.(H

addin

gto

n R

d

Pem

bro

ke R

oad

Stages

Runnin

g T

imes

0700-0900

0900-1600

1600-1900

Figure 4. 3: Dublin Bus: Service 4 towards Blackrock –journey times during the day



From a passenger information point of view, customer satisfaction and service monitoring viewpoint, there is a strong case for introducing intermediate timing points along this route. This would allow greater customisation of bus stop timetable displays for the local market and allow service controllers to assess late running and regulate accordingly. Bus drivers may be able to regulate their driving to address potential early running – or in extreme cases to pause until scheduled departure time is reached. In the UK a monitoring standard of 95% compliance within a range of 1 minute early to 5 minutes late is in place.

Table 4.1 shows the times for a peak and inter peak departure for Route 4 at each of the main stages along the route using the average morning peak and inter peak running times. We have allowed 5 minutes from Harristown to Ballymun and 10 minutes from Merrion Gates to Blackrock to allow for the extremes of the route not covered in our analysis. The scheduled return journey is also shown.

On average, the scheduled journey time for 08:00 departure from Harristown is insufficient to ensure an on time departure for the return leg.

Morning Peak Average Running Time

Inter Peak Average Running Time


Ballymun Road (first stage) 08:05 12:05

Botanic Avenue 08:26 12:19

Phibsboro 08:32 12:25

O'Connell Street 08:52 12:42

Ballsbridge (Anglesea Rd.) 09:04 12:54

Merrion Gates 09:12 13:00

Blackrock 09:22 13:10

Scheduled Return Departure 09:15 13:15

Table 4. 1: Dublin Bus running time analysis – Route 4


Clearly congestion at peak times is an issue. Our analysis indicates that additional time should be allowed for Route 4 peak journey time. Dublin Bus management state that a new schedule is in preparation which addresses the running time issue

Reliability of network and services

Dublin Bus collects lost mileage data over 4 week periods. Lost mileage is disaggregated by cause and by depot. During 2008 Period 7, total mileage lost across the network was 0.5%. This is below that which is measured in many other cities. Given the reported traffic problems in Dublin, the figure of 0.24% for traffic lost mileage appears very low. Dublin Bus has acknowledged that the mileage reporting process may not record all lost mileage. Inspectors both on the road and in the garage have responsibility for reporting lost mileages, but this is not always recorded during busy times.

Item Dublin Bus Period 7, 2008 England Outside London London

All Items 0.5% 0.9% 2.5%

Traffic 0.24% 0.2% 1.7%

Maintenance 0.13% 0.3% 0.3%

Staff 0.04% 0.2% 0.1%

Other 0.06%

Table 4. 2: Causes of lost mileage Dublin Bus, England and London

Source: Dublin Bus, Department of Transport (www.dft.gov.uk)

http://www.dft.gov.uk/


Monitoring punctuality

Punctuality data was provided by Dublin Bus for January to March 2008. For Harristown, observations were undertaken for 91 scheduled departures. Of these, observed departures varied from 6 minutes early to 7 minutes late. Three did not operate at all.

For Donnybrook observations were made of 101 scheduled departures. Of these, observed departures varied from 3 minutes early to 10 minutes late. Nineteen buses did not operate at all.

5

All observations were conducted at the start of routes, which presents a limited picture of the network, and the number of observations over the period represent a statistically limited sample. Nevertheless, the figures show over 10% of buses departing more than two minutes early and the number of buses from Donnybrook depot which did not operate is high.

Punctuality data is a useful tool for management in determining which routes need bus priority measures, revised schedules and additional attention from roadside supervisors. However, the existing location of measurements (at termini) and small sample size means that the resulting data is of limited use as a management tool. AVL will in due course provide a comprehensive view of punctuality across the network. In the meantime, an intensification of the manual observations should be considered.

Bus Éireann Many of the factors affecting service reliability for Dublin Bus also apply to Bus Éireann.

In some cases lay over time for Bus Éireann services, at the end of each journey is relatively long. This ensures that in almost all cases the return journey will commence on time. This is especially important for the customer if the service is an infrequent one. AVL systems, due to be fully implemented during 2009 will provide a comprehensive view of punctuality across the network. In the meantime, an intensification of the manual observations should be considered.

The collation of lost mileage data is a valuable management tool providing early warning in terms of:

Vehicle reliability

Staff availability

Traffic delays

Ensuring that schedules are not over or under-resourced

Bus Éireann issue Road Passenger Operations summaries every 4 weeks. For the study, Bus Éireann provided summaries from the Southern Region for periods 3, 4 and 6 of 2008. The reports show the number of trips operated as a percentage and service failures as an absolute number (13:00-15:00 failures per period).

Driver availability is shown to be in the region of 95-98%. Bus Éireann have explained that this is the number before spare drivers have been allocated or contractors asked to substitute, and therefore the actual number operated is much higher, although there are no figures to show the level achieved.

Maintenance key performance indicators are centred on vehicle availability. The data for the availability of vehicles does not take into account the new vehicles being delivered during the relevant periods

5 Dublin Bus management state that the 19% of services recorded as not operating is due to observations being

taken at a terminus. On the days of observation, some buses were only operating part of the route. These buses were ―turned back early‖ by inspectors to address late running of buses due to congestion.


Reliability of network and services assessment

Traffic congestion is a significant issue in Dublin city centre and at other ―pinch points‖. Congestion is also an issue in other cities and towns for Bus Éireann.

We recommend that procedures are put in place to accurately record lost mileage as it can be a useful management tool to improve reliability for customers.

An AVL system will in due course provide a comprehensive view of punctuality across the network of both companies.

Pending the rollout of AVL systems, an intensification of manual observations for Dublin Bus services should be considered.

We recommend the introduction of intermediate running times to help improve reliability.

Bus Éireann‘s current monitoring reports should be restructured to show the number of trips lost for each depot as a percentage attributable to each category (staff, vehicles, traffic, other) on a consistent basis.


4.2 Congestion

Congestion directly impacts on the efficiency of Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann in a number of ways:

Revenue loss

Buses and drivers that are tied up in congested traffic are producing less revenue.

Operational issues

Drivers take longer to complete their duties than scheduled, incurring an overtime expense for the company.

Scheduled journey times need to reflect realistic times – congestion introduces variability into journey times and more recovery time is needed before return journeys can be made. This has a direct impact on both driver costs and fleet requirement.

Customer issues

Where congestion leads to service reliability issues, customer confidence in the service is eroded, further reducing passenger numbers.

A report, commissioned by Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann, by BDO Simpson Xavier estimated that congestion costs each company the following amounts in 2005;

Dublin Bus: €60m

Bus Éireann: €20.5m

Dublin congestion

Congestion is a significant issue for both companies. Congestion restricts the efficient operations of the companies and increases their respective cost bases.

Our analysis identifying journey time variation for various routes operated by Dublin Bus clearly indicates that congestion is a major issue in Dublin. The congestion in Dublin also impacts on Bus Éireann commuter services and other services operating to and from Busáras.

The most recent annual Dublin Transportation Office Quality Bus Corridor monitoring report highlights findings from a monitoring exercise undertaken in November 2007. Findings contained within this report include:

A reduction in passenger numbers crossing the canal cordon on QBC corridors of 3.56% compared to 2006 with a decline in numbers on all corridors except Malahide and Blanchardstown;

Passenger numbers travelling on QBC designated routes crossing the canal cordon between 7 – 10am have declined by 5.25% compared to 2006 with small increases on the Lucan and Malahide QBCs being offset by significant reductions on the north Clondalkin and Swords QBCs;

Bus average journey times in the morning peak were less than the corresponding car average journey time in 12 out of the 16 QBCs with significant variations on some;

Significant journey time improvements were achieved on the Lucan and Malahide QBCs;

Bus modal share of persons crossing the canal cordon between 7–10am continues to fall in 2007, having peaked at 34.66% in 2003.

Bus modal share is greatest where QBCs exist, demonstrating the importance of bus priority in attracting people from their cars.

According to the Company, approximately 80% of the Dublin Bus fleet use radial QBCs to some degree. Closer to 65% of the Dublin Bus fleet operate along significant sections of QBCs.

QBCs have a bus speed design specification, net of dwell times, of just under 18km per hour. Speeds significantly below this target were observed on a number of city centre sections of QBC routes including:


QBC Section Time Average Speed

Blanchardstown Hawkins Street to Merchants Quay PM peak 5.2 km/hr

Rathfarnham Camden Street to Bishop Street AM peak 3.0 km/hr

Stillorgan Parnell Square East to D‘Olier Street PM peak 3.1 km/hr

Tallaght Dame Street to Harcourt Street PM peak 6.8 km/hr

Average Walking Speed 5 km/hr

QBC Minimum Design Speed (net of dwell times) 18 km/hr

Table 4. 3: Selection of bus speeds from DTO QBC Monitoring Report 2007


The majority of QBCs do not achieve the minimum design speed. A bus priority programme has been agreed between Dublin Bus and Dublin City Council/Quality Bus Network office to address key ―pinch points‖ where severe bus congestion occurs. During our consultation with the QBN office, a concern was raised at the slow pace of implementing improvements due to various planning issues and local objections.

In recent times, Dublin Bus has had considerable discussions with key stakeholders regarding a public transport gate at Trinity College. This has the potential to deliver a step change in improved reliability for buses from all corridors across the city. Our analysis supports the introduction of this project.

Bus priority improvements in Dublin will also benefit Bus Éireann commuter services and expressway services operating from Busáras. QBN projects extend beyond Dublin to surrounding counties and benefit Bus Éireann services. For example, bus priority measures have recently been introduced in Dunshaughlin, Co. Meath. ‗Green Routes‘ have been introduced in Cork and plans are in place for bus priority measures in a number of other cities around the country.

Higher average operating speeds will reduce costs for the companies but also ensure more consistent and faster journey times for passengers thereby increasing the attractiveness of the bus relative to other modes of travel. Any acceleration to existing bus priority programmes would bring benefits to both passengers and operators.

In addition to bus lanes, further priority measures are planned. These include linking AVL information to the traffic light management system (SCATS) in Dublin to provide further priority to buses. This should help improve reliability of bus journey times. We understand from our consultations with the DTO that their research indicates that the time spent by buses stopped at traffic signals can form a significant portion of overall journey times.

By way of example, we set out below a range of options Dublin Bus can use to ensure the impact of congestion is minimised.

Option A: Intermediate running times

As discussed in Section 4.1.

Option B: Match schedule to running time as far as possible:

Our scheduling analysis shows that in some instances scheduled journey times vary very little throughout the day. Ticketing analysis indicates that journey times in general do improve during the interpeak period. Specific analysis for Route 4 is contained in Section 4.1.

Option C: Even, frequent headways

Currently, the majority of routes operated by Dublin Bus are not timetabled to have a consistent headway between services. Consistent and frequent headways can minimise the impact for customers of instances where congestion results in journey times being greater than scheduled. Rather than a bus operating every 10 minutes, inspectors can take action to ensure that services are operated, for example, every 12 minutes thereby minimizing the impact for the customer. Where departures are irregular, this approach is not possible.


Option D: Use of technology

The introduction of AVL will assist the company in both assessing the reasonableness of the current scheduled journey times for services as well as help manage services on days where unanticipated congestion occurs. AVL will also facilitate linkage to traffic light management systems (SCATS). RTPI by displaying expected arrival times of services, inform passengers of delays caused by congestion.

Option E: Avoid congestion

O‘Connell Street is one of the most congested points on the Dublin Bus network. All cross city services operated by Dublin Bus currently use O‘Connell Bridge. The Company believe this is essential as they believe the majority of customers wish to travel to O‘Connell Street or its surrounds. However, in light of the significant congestion in the area, we believe Dublin Bus should explore, at least on a pilot basis, using other routes as a basis to cross the city.

Supply side measures, as set out in this report, will not of themselves move sufficient passengers out of cars and on to public transport to maximise revenues and minimise required PSO for the bus service. Currently Dublin City Council are proposing a number of demand management measures including increasing parking charges in the city centre and closing or re-routing a significant number of roads pre and post the construction of Transport 21 projects.

We recommend that all demand management options, including road user pricing and congestion charging, should be evaluated in detail. A study should be carried out to assess the feasibility of introducing additional demand management measures opt drive a major shift from car passenger journeys to the bus and other public transport. An additional benefit of reducing car passenger journeys is that it will further reduce congestion thus speeding up the bus service and making it even more attractive. The combination of extra passenger revenue, efficiency gains due to reduced congestion and potentially allocation or some or all of the revenues raised through road user charging, offers an opportunity to make a significant effort to solve the projected financial objects of Dublin Bus while enhancing rather than curtailing services.

London congestion charge

London‘s congestion charging scheme was introduced in February 2002 to a 21 square kilometre area in the centre, representing 1.3% of the city‘s total 1579 square kilometres. There was no charge to travel along the main ring road bordering the zone, but any vehicles entering or moving within the zone were required to pay a charge of £5, later increased to £8. No charge is made during the weekend, public holidays or other non-charging days such as between Christmas and New Year. Certain low emission vehicles are exempt, as are buses and taxis.

Immediately following the introduction of the congestion charge, congestion decreased by 30% within the charging zone. Bus journey times and the variability of journey times reduced.

Around a fifth of London's bus journeys pass through the charging zone. Reliability of services, measured by excess wait time, across London showed an improvement of 20% in the first year after the congestion charge was introduced. Delays caused by traffic congestion fell by 40% across London, by 60% within the charging area, and by 50% along the boundary

Congestion assessment

Congestion is a significant issue for both companies. Congestion restricts the efficient operations of both companies and increases their respective cost bases.

We support the acceleration of existing bus priority programmes and demand management schemes such as bus gates increased parking charges and integration of AVL to Dublin traffic light management systems (SCATS). We support the bus gate proposal for College Green.

We recommend a study be carried out to test the feasibility of all possible demand management options including road user pricing and congestion charging.


4.3 Ticketing and fare structure

Dublin Bus

The standard cash fares for Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann are currently approved by the Minister for Transport. Prepaid ticket prices do not require ministerial approval. An indirect result is that discounts for prepaid tickets relative to cash tickets are less than discounts found in the UK and elsewhere in Europe. As a result cash paying passengers make up the majority of fares for Dublin Bus. This results in higher cash handling costs for the bus companies and increased dwell times at bus stops.

Analysis of existing Dublin Bus cash and period fares

The Dublin Bus main adult ticket structure is summarised in Table 4.4. Period tickets offer reasonable value with a weekly ticket at 3.8x the day ticket (and 3 day ticket at less than twice the day ticket). However when period tickets are compared to cash/single journey tickets the value is less clear. Users need to make at least 12 journeys per week before their tickets become good value. Therefore for commuters paying even the top fare, 10 €2 tickets represents a €20 weekly travel cost, and the value of paying €23 for optional unlimited travel is questionable. This is more severe for cheaper single tickets.

Stages Single Day 3 Day 7 Day

1-3 €1.05 €6.00 €11.50 €23.00

4-7 €1.50 €6.00 €11.50 €23.00

8-13 €1.70 €6.00 €11.50 €23.00

14-23 €2.00 €6.00 €11.50 €23.00

Ratio to Single

1-3 5.7 11.0 21.9

4-7 4.0 7.7 15.3

8-13 3.5 6.8 13.5

14-23 3.0 5.8 11.5

Table 4. 4: 2008 Fare structure (main adult tickets)


Examples of on and off bus ticket purchases

Transport for London has a two tier fare as part of its strategy to minimise on bus ticket sales. Single fares are priced at £2.00, with a discount to £0.90 for ‗Oyster‘ smart card users. A £3.50 day bus pass (£3.00 with Oyster), with £13 weekly, £50 monthly and £520 annual tickets are also available. Multi modal travelcards are also available.

STIB in Brussels charges €2.00 for on vehicle issued single tickets and €1.70 from machines, or €1.60 for smartcards. One day tickets are €4.50 (machine) or €4.20 (smartcard).

In Dublin it is not possible for cash paying passengers to purchase a ticket for a full journey, where a change of bus is required.

Use of period tickets

Table 4.5 shows the changes in ticket use in England reported by the Department for Transport (UK). This shows how the bus operators have developed their period ticket ranges to increase share of use at a time when concessionary use has increased dramatically due to the expansion of free travel. In London the transformation has been more radical with 44% of journeys now made using Smartcards and only 5% of users paying cash fares. Period tickets encourage multiple trip making, capture revenue early and engender loyalty from passengers.


Metropolitan Cities London All England

2000/1 2007/8 2000/1 2007/8 2000/1 2007/8

Cash Fare on Bus 38% 29% 28% 5% 42% 20%

Day Ticket 8% 10% 5% 5% 5% 7%

Period Ticket 16% 20% 27% 20% 18% 18%

Student etc 3% 1% 0% 0% 2% 1%

Mutli Modal Period 6% 4% 19% 14% 10% 8%

Concession 29% 32% 14% 13% 21% 25%

Other inc Smartcard 1% 3% 7% 44% 3% 21%

Table 4. 5: Changes in ticket use – England 2000/1 to 2007/8


In Brussels, STIB reports that 66% passenger journeys are made on ―general subscription‖ tickets, which represents their various pre-paid ranges. 5% of journeys use 1 trip tickets. STIB‘s peak hour bus speeds are 15.5km/h which is quite poor, but better than Dublin Bus, partially reflecting the reduced boarding times that off bus ticketing provides.

In Zurich tickets are sold on a time basis with a one hour ticket at 3.90CHF (approximately €2.50) and 24 hour ticket at twice that (7.80CHF). Longer periods are also available and, unusually are sold on a ‗person day‘ basis. For example two passengers wishing to buy a three day ticket each, would be offered a six day ticket to share, cancelling two portions each day.

Dublin Bus has advised us that they aim to simplify their fare structure to further reduce the number of single fares available.

Changes to fare structures have potential risks, given the price sensitivity in the market place. Shorter distance fares are more elastic than mid distance fares reflecting the feasibility of walking and cycling as alternatives. Long distance fares are also more elastic, perhaps reflecting higher feasibility of alternatives such as rail or additional cars.

Bus Éireann ticketing

Bus Éireann has a number of different ticket types:

Conventional single fares but including discounted single fares for multi leg journeys.

Returns – including midweek discounted returns, day returns and period returns.

Student discounted singles and returns.

Weekly 10 journey tickets – a discount on 10 singles but must be used within one week.

Tourist based unlimited travel tickets.

Whilst the ten journey ticket is relevant for commuter services, elsewhere there may be passengers who wish to make the same regular journey. There could be merit in considering a simple unlimited weekly or monthly ticket, especially in provincial cities.

The major UK bus operators have developed day, week and month tickets effectively, and similar versions are available elsewhere in Europe. Table 4.6 shows the transformation in ticket type uses in the English Shire counties. This is all of England except for London and the metropolitan conurbations

6. Free concessionary travel has increased journeys amongst OAPs, but day and period

tickets have increased their market share from 13% to 23%.

6 Greater Manchester, Merseyside, Tyne & Wear, South Yorkshire, West Yorkshire, West Midlands


2000/1 2007/8 Notes

Cash Fare on Bus 60% 35% Some transfer to free concessions

Day Ticket 4% 8%

Period Ticket 9% 15%

Student etc 2% 1%

Multi Modal Period 3% 2%

Concession 19% 36% Introduction of free concessions

Other inc Smartcard 1% 2%

Table 4. 6: Share of passenger journeys by ticket type – English „Shire‟ Areas


Tickets have often been priced to attract optional travel. For example you may be able to make two journeys for €3.50 (€1.75 single x 2) but a day ticket could cost €3.80 giving unlimited additional journeys for just €0.30.

We recommend that fare levels should be set with a clear understanding of the impact of changing one type on the usage of another. For example, if singles rose by 5% and periods by 10%, then the former will become better value and some passengers will switch to them. The phased introduction of smart cards in 2009 and some integrated fares on Dublin Bus provides the opportunity to review fare structures. The bus companies and the Department of Transport should work together to;

Increase the price differential between single and period tickets.

Maximise usage of unlimited travel period tickets, rather than single or ten journey tickets to encourage additional, optional travel.

The correct situation, whereby only the cash fare is regulation, should be changed. Either cash fares and prepaid fares should both be regulated or they shall both be deregulated to facilitate the above moves.

Dwell times

The DTO QBC Monitoring Report for 2007 measured boarding and alighting time as a percentage of total journey time. On corridors where services benefited from significant bus priority, boarding and alighting time was a significant portion of overall journey time.

Malahide Road am peak: 22%

Stillorgan QBC am peak: 21%

Finglas QBC am peak: 19%

The issue of dwell times becomes material when bus speeds exceed a certain level. As additional bus priority measures are implemented, measures should also be put in place to tackle the issue of dwell times.

Overall dwell times in Dublin are higher as a result of the predominance of cash fares due to longer transaction times for cash paying passengers, even though the exact fare system operated by Dublin Bus‘ reduces individual transaction times compared to change giving systems. The higher proportion of cash paying passengers compared to the UK and elsewhere in Europe offsets this, however, and a strategy to migrate users to prepaid tickets is desirable.

Typical time to complete cash transaction in the UK (with change facility): 7 seconds.

Typical time to complete cash transaction on Dublin Bus (from ticket data analysis): 4 seconds.

Typical time to complete prepay ticket transactions on Dublin Bus (from ticket data analysis): 2 seconds.


Dwell times could be reduced, particularly in city centre locations, by:

reducing on cash fares versus prepaid fares;

introducing on-street ticket sale machines; and

re-examining the use of entry and exit doors is single door only on certain routes.

In London, on board cash fare purchases make up less than 5% of all transactions.

Kerbside ticketing machines

In order to reduce bus stop dwell times and improve overall journey speeds, TfL banned on-bus cash sales from 2003 in London's West End and along all corridors where articulated buses replaced double deck vehicles.

Kerbside ticket vending machines were installed at at every stop affected. The tickets sell adult and child single tickets and one day bus passes.

The Fastrack bus system in Kent Thameside, operates a route with kerbside vending machines at every stop.

In a number of towns and cities in mainland Europe, it is quite common for passengers to be unable to buy tickets on the bus. However, since such schemes operate citywide, passengers are familiar with the need to buy their tickets in advance and therefore kerbside vending machines tend to be available only at the busiest stops.

While the issue of dwell times is of particular relevance for city operations, it is less material for coach operations. However, the move away from cash transactions even on coach services can engender customer loyalty and reduce cash handling costs. Bus Éireann currently offer a 10% discount to customers purchasing their expressway and stage carriage tickets on line.

Ticketing and fare structure assessment

Single ticket, on board, cash sales are high when compared to other countries.

We recommend a progressive refocusing of the fare structure, to transfer people onto pre-paid or longer duration tickets. A full smart card integrated ticketing system, with electronic purse capability, will significantly assist in implementing such a move.

The current situation whereby only the cash fare is regulated should be changed.


4.4 Real Time Passenger Information (RTPI)

Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann are currently rolling out an AVL control system (AVL). The rollout is planned to be completed in mid 2009 for Bus Éireann and mid 2010 for Dublin Bus. The system will provide a facility to locate every bus in the fleet in real time. The AVL system provides the platform on which a RTPI system can be implemented. This will enable route controllers to more efficiently manage the service, respond to service interruptions, plan journey times and respond more effectively to traffic congestion. Such systems are now common place in the bus industry.

RTPI can provide up-to-date information to customers on actual bus arrival and departure times. This information can be made available on electronic displays at bus stops, in addition to mobile phone and other mobile devices and on the internet. We believe that RTPI is an important feature of a customer orientated bus service. For a relatively small capital investment, significant improvements can be made to the customer experience. We recommend that this project be prioritised and that any regulatory obstacles are overcome at an early date.

Bus Éireann already offers RTPI solutions to customers through SMS texting and on the internet. In 2009, Bus Éireann will undertake a pilot electronic display RTPI project across the Gateway cities in conjunction with the roll out of its AVL system.

Dublin Bus do not currently offer RTPI information for their services. The RTPI project is estimated to cost Dublin Bus in the region of €5.4m with an additional cost of approximately €3m for Dublin City Council for the associated infrastructure (poles, connection to fibre optic cables, electricity etc.).

While funding for the project is available under Transport 21, we understand regulatory obstacles have delayed the rollout of RTPI. We understand Dublin City Council is in discussions with Department of Transport to resolve the regulatory issues. These issues need to be resolved as a matter or urgency.

RTPI assessment

We believe that RTPI is an essential feature of a customer orientated bus service.

For a relatively small capital investment, very significant improvements can be made to the customer experience.

We recommend that this project be prioritised and that any regulatory obstacles are overcome at an early date.


4.5 Capacity and operating hours

We were asked to examine service variations during weekdays and weekends and the extent of peak and off peak provision. The table below shows the level of services currently during the week:

Dublin Bus

Dublin Bus Services Buses deployed Relative to weekday inter peak

Weekday morning peak services 1032 133%

Weekday inter peak 774 100%

Saturday services 690 89%

Sunday services 472 61%

Table 4. 7: Dublin Bus deployment


Dublin Bus has over 250 vehicles dedicated to peak service provision. While some of these could be used to provide additional off peak services, the cost of this is material.

When benchmarked against other operators, the level of Saturday and Sunday provision is broadly comparable.

Saturday provision is consistent with most other operations at 89% of the off peak weekday level. On Sundays there appears a greater level of service provision than in the UK market. However this reflects significant differences in the markets. Traditionally Sunday trading was banned in England and Wales (but not Scotland) and although introduced some years ago is generally restricted to six hours per day for major shops.

An appraisal of passenger data shows average loadings per bus on a Saturday to be 95% of weekday off peak and Sunday to be 90%. Allowing for the impacts of a lower frequency on passenger numbers this suggests that the comparative service levels are broadly appropriate.

Figure 4.5 shows this as an index of the peak hour (08:00-08:59=100). This shows that mid-morning passenger levels drop to 40% of the peak hour and this grows to 50% by early afternoon but the afternoon peak is less severe but longer.

Unlike trams and trains where the asset cost is high, on a bus network our experience shows that operating a bus throughout the day

7 is around 55-60% higher than peak hour only operation. As

shown in the graphs, demand is much lower off peak (40-50% of peak patronage from c70% of supply). This is not an easy market to grow, especially when cost economies are required.

7 For this purpose we assumed daytime operation = 12 hours, peak only operation = 6 hours. Evening operation

has been excluded from the estimate.


Passenger Demand

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Hour

Passengers

Donnybrook

Harristown

Figure 4. 4: Passenger demand


Passenger Index

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Hour

Passenger

Index (

0800=

100)

Donnybrook

Harristown

Figure 4. 5: Dublin Bus passenger index


Table 4.8 shows how the issue of capacity varies across the network. This estimates the average load on each route at its busiest point – and does not present the total passengers. To calculate this we have identified where the busiest point is using the ticket machine data to model passenger boarding and alighting patterns. We then calculate what the total passengers on board at this point as a percentage of the total passengers for the route. This percentage is then applied to the passengers by hour to derive the peak and off peak average load.


Dublin Bus has advised that they apply a 8% uplift to the recorded ticket machine passenger numbers to address problems with occasional non-recording of zero fare journeys by drivers. We have therefore applied a similar factor to the raw data in order to produce the figures in the above table.

Average passengers per bus at busiest point

Morning peak inbound Inter peak inbound Afternoon peak outbound

4/4A 64 55 72

7 98 76 85

11/11B 69 35 60

13/13A 69 56 70

14/A 70 72 75

17A 75 51 66

18 53 39 52

27B 60 57 77

40 Group 72 35 51

45 64 44 59

46A 82 71 76

83 43 52 40

128 84 49 83

140 66 29 66

145 87 66 93

Table 4. 8: Loading analysis – Sample services


Bus capacity for the above routes is as follows:

Articulated buses (Route 4/a): 52 sitting, 93 standing, 145 total.

Tri Axle buses (Route 46A): 91 sitting, 32 standing, 123 total.

Standard double deck buses (other routes): 76 sitting, 15 standing, 91 total.

The morning peak hour analysed represents 08:00 to 09:00 which, as shown elsewhere, has the highest passenger numbers of any hour during the day. Even within this there are peaks, seasonal variation and day to day variation which could result in significant capacity issues given how close the average is to the seated capacity in some cases and that four routes are commonly overloaded.

There is significant spare capacity on certain routes especially in the inter peak, such as the 40 group of services.


Bus Éireann Averag e Daily flow of B us E ireann P as s eng ers by C ity S ervic es and T ime of Day, 2007

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

07

:00

- 0

7:5

9

08

:00

- 0

8:5

9

09

:00

- 0

9:5

9

10

:00

- 1

0:5

9

11

:00

- 1

1:5

9

12

:00

- 1

2:5

9

13

:00

- 1

3:5

9

14

:00

- 1

4:5

9

15

:00

- 1

5:5

9

16

:00

- 1

6:5

9

17

:00

- 1

7:5

9

18

:00

- 1

8:5

9

19

:00

- 1

9:5

9

20

:00

- 2

0:5

9

21

:00

- 2

1:5

9

22

:00

- 2

2:5

9

23

:00

- 2

3:5

9

Time of Day

% o

f D

ail

y F

low

C ork

G alway

L imerick

Waterford

Figure 4. 6: Bus Éireann analysis showing average daily passenger flows for city operations

Source: Bus Éireann

City Services (excl. rural) Buses deployed Relative to weekday inter peak

Weekday morning peak services 58 104%

Weekday inter peak 56 100%

Saturday services 49 88%

Sunday services 32 57%

Table 4. 9: Bus Éireann analysis showing average daily passenger flows for city operations

Source: Bus Éireann

Figure 4.6 and Table 4.9 indicate that passenger flows and resource deployment for the city operations of Bus Éireann have similar features to that of Dublin Bus.

Bus Éireann operate stage carriage and inter city services in a manner designed to ensure passengers are not left behind due to the bus being full. Typically, this is managed in one of two ways;

Where demand for a particular scheduled departure regularly exceeds the capacity of a single vehicle, more than one bus is allocated to the service (e.g. certain peak commuter services)

Where demand for a particular scheduled departure exceeds the capacity of a single vehicle on particular days or occasions, more than one bus is allocated to the service. This is usually sourced from sub contractors (e.g. Friday evening intercity services)

With regard to the first scenario, demand could be met in some cases by the use of larger vehicles, thereby reducing the number of drivers required. Bus Éireann have recently entered a number of double deck tri-axle coaches into service along a number of commuter routes into Dublin. Bus Éireann have highlighted a concern that currently double deck buses and coaches are subject to a speed restriction which significantly restricts the efficient operation of such vehicles. Given the recent increase in the number of double deck coaches operated by the company, we recommended that a decision on the issue of speed restrictions is made at the earliest opportunity.


Operating hours

Dublin Bus has introduced a number of earlier departures on certain routes in recent years. The latest departure from the city centre for any regular bus service is 23:30. The time of the last departure has not changed for a significant period of time.

The current operating hours for Luas indicates potential demand for bus services with longer operating hours.

Service Route 46A LUAS (green)

First Service to city (mon - fri) 06:25 05:30

Last Service from city (mon - sat) 23:30 00:30

First Service to city (Sat) 07:00 06:15

First Service (Sun) 09:30 06:45

Table 4. 10: Operating hours


It should be noted that extending existing operating hours is likely to lead to a net increase in costs as passenger numbers may not cover the entire cost of operating the additional services. However, without an extension in operating hours, a significant difference in service levels will continue to exist between Luas and bus operations.

Nitelink, an outbound only express late night service from the city centre along key corridors with limited pick up points, is operated 6 nights a week by Dublin Bus. Passenger numbers have fallen in recent years. Management attribute this to the increase in the numbers of licensed taxis.

Bus Éireann have recently introduced 24 hour operations on a number of inter city services. For example, there are now hourly services between Belfast and Dublin 24 hours a day, 7 day a week. The Eastern Region Development Plan including plans for many 20 hour a day services, subject to funding. Like Dublin Bus, the operating hours for city services have not changed significantly in recent times.

Capacity and operating hours assessment

Current levels of peak provision of services at Dublin Bus are warranted, although some routes have relatively low average loadings even at peak hours. When benchmarked against other operators, the level of Saturday and Sunday provision is broadly comparable.

The introduction of larger Bus Éireann vehicles on certain routes may reduce the need to have additional buses operating certain services to meet demand.

Bus Éireann have recently introduced 24 hour services on certain intercity routes. The majority of other services operated by both companies cease at c.23:30. The daily operational hours for Luas are longer. There is a case for taking a more integrated approach to the hours of operations of public transport services in the Greater Dublin Area, though there are cost implications for extending hours of operation of bus services.


4.6 Fleet acquisition and replacement

Replacement bus programme

In recent years a rolling replacement bus programme has been in place at both companies. The buses are part funded by the Exchequer. Maintaining a low fleet age has a number of advantages:

Environment – newer engines generally more efficient.

Accessibility – wheelchair accessible target for entire fleet by 2012 dependent on maintaining programme.

Maintenance – lower age of fleet equates to lower cost of maintenance per kilometre.

Reliability for customer – less breakdowns.

Attractiveness for customer – easier to attract new customers onto modern fleet.

Consistency – large, irregular orders of new buses perpetuates the difficulty of dealing with a large number of buses reaching retiring age all at once.

Figure 4. 7: Dublin Bus average age of fleet


Fleet expansion

A number of factors indicate that fleet expansion is not an immediate issue for either company;

Falling passenger numbers

Rationalisation plans to address forecast losses

Capacity increases in existing fleet, particularly in the case of Dublin Bus.

Our analysis shows that the current fleet size is adequate to service current demand. We favour optimising the existing network and extracting full value from the existing fleet before considering future fleet expansion. The need for fleet expansion should be reviewed in the future in light of changing external circumstances and internal improvements in efficiency. Examples of external factors are:

The traffic management plan for Transport 21 city centre Metro and Luas construction may require significant increase in bus modal share.

Traffic or demand management plans introduced may offer a ‗step change‘ in bus priority thus increasing demand (e.g. bus gate at College Green or introduction of road user charging).

Sustainability agenda requiring significant modal shift.


Fleet acquisition - Deployment

The Department of Transport issued approval for the purchase of 100 additional buses for Dublin Bus in September 2006. The buses were delivered between September and December 2006. The new buses were deployed over an extended period of time. Of these 100 additional buses, 18 have yet to be used for fleet expansion. Table 4.11 sets out the deployment of the first 82 vehicles. The remaining vehicles entered service in recent months but have been used to replace older buses rather than expand the fleet.

Since December 2006, Dublin Bus has introduced 82 buses to the following areas:

PVR

A 3rd

December 2006, Ellensboro Tallaght 2

B 3rd

December 2006, Finglas 2

C 10th December 2006, R145, Bray, North Wicklow 9

D 4th March 2007, R151, South Clondalkkin QBC 14

E 22nd

May 2007, Malahide to Rathmines 3

F 22nd

May 2007, Knocklyon 6

G 29th July 2007, Ballymun/Merrion QBC 7

H 30th September 2007, Ballycullen/Knocklyon 2

I 19th November 2007, Part 2 Merrion (R4A) 1

J 19th November 2007, Clongriffin R128 15

K 29th November 2007, Finglas (pre 140 service) 4

L 10th February 2008 Finglas R140 (remainder) 8

73 = 82 fleet

Table 4. 11: Deployment of fleet delivered in autumn 2006


The company explained that the staggered deployment of the 100 additional buses was due to the requirement to hire and train new drivers and maintenance staff combined with gaining licences for the additional services which they were to operate.

The 100 additional buses cost in the region of €30m. Given the substantial capital cost involved in acquiring new vehicles, a programme should be in place in advance of the delivery of such vehicles to ensure the valuable new assets are deployed as soon as possible.

Fleet acquisition and replacement assessment

A number of factors indicate that fleet expansion is not an immediate issue for either company:

Falling passenger numbers

Rationalisation plans to address forecast losses

Capacity increases in existing fleet, particularly in the case of Dublin Bus.

Fleet replacement on a rolling basis can be justified in terms of maintaining the current average age of the fleet with consequential advantages for the environment, maintenance, reliability, and passenger comfort.


4.7 Licensing

While the review of current licensing arrangements is not specifically part of our Terms of Reference, it is highlighted due to the fact that both companies cite this area as a significant restriction of their efficient operation. We understand that the recently passed Dublin Transport Authority 2008 and a planned revision to the 1932 Act are seen as a means to create a more coherent approach to licensing.

The issue of licensing and the apparent restriction the current regime places on developing a coherent network has been raised by a number of stakeholders, in addition to Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann. In areas where a private operator has a licence, changes and enhancement to services operated by Dublin Bus or Bus Éireann can be restricted.

The Road Transport Act, 1932, as amended, is the primary legislation governing the provision of national passenger services by private bus operators. Section 7 of the Act prohibits the operation of passenger road services except under licence granted by the Minister for Transport.

Under the Transport Act, 1958, Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann are exempt from the requirement to hold Passenger Road Licences, but the companies may not, without the consent of the Minister, initiate or alter any passenger road services so as to compete with a licensed private service.

Section 25 of the 1958 Act restricts the initiation and alteration of passenger road services. Subsections read as follows;

(1) The Board shall not, without the consent of the Minister, initiate any passenger road service or alter any passenger road service for the time being operated by it so as to compete with a licensed passenger road service.

(2) If any question arises whether any existing or proposed service or alteration does or would so compete the question shall be referred to the Minister whose decision shall be final.

(3) The Board shall comply with such directions as may be given to it by the Minister for the purposes of this section.

Since 2001, the Department has implemented notification procedures in respect of the introduction of new or revised services by Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann. The procedures are designed to ensure that the companies do not announce or introduce services that may serve to pre-empt the introduction of licensed services by private operators or prior applications by private operators. The procedures are also designed to ensure fair treatment for the companies, enabling them to introduce new or revised services in an orderly and speedy fashion and provide a mechanism to enable them to comply with their obligations under the Transport Act.

The companies are required to notify the Department of proposed changes to existing services at least four weeks prior to their introduction and proposals to introduce new services to existing services.

Where proposed new services, or changes to existing services, made by Dublin Bus or Bus Éireann could potentially give rise to competition with an existing licensed service provided by a private bus operator, Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann are required to obtain the consent of the Minister under section 25 of the Transport Act 1958.

In cases where Dublin Bus or Bus Éireann propose introducing new or amended service on a route which overlaps with a proposed private sector service, as set out in a licence application, consideration of such a Dublin Bus or Bus Éireann proposal deferred pending the finalisation of private operators application. The Department deals with applications from both State and private operators for services on a specific route on a first-come first-served basis.


Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann concerns regarding current licensing regime

Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann believe the current approach to licensing restricts their ability to operate in an efficient manner.

Both companies cite examples of where they believe Private Operators have been permitted to ―cherry pick‖ profitable routes which hinder their ability to provide a comprehensive, integrated network of services. Bus Éireann also cite instances where intercity licences have been granted for services at times close to similar scheduled services of Bus Éireann. Bus Éireann state that in some instances, where their applications are given partial clearance, the overall proposal becomes unviable. By way of example, Bus Éireann cite a submission for an efficient clockface application for a new amended service, but the partial clearance prevents a cost effective return journey.

Dublin Bus believes the difficulties in the licensing area have arisen because of a lack of a precise definition of ―competition‖ in the 1950 Act and that the Department have interpreted ―competition‖ narrowly – that it exists where services may compete ―in any way‖ with a licensed private service rather than taking a broader view concerning themselves with cases where there is potential for competition to exist in a ―significant way‖.

Where the Department ejects a proposal to note a new or amended Dublin Bus or Bus Éireann service, on the grounds of potential competition with a licensed operator, Dublin Bus or Bus Éireann may apply for Ministerial approval to note the service. Section 25 of the 1958 Transport Act permits the authorisation of such potentially competing services, if approved by the Minister. Bus Éireann have sought such approval in a small number of cases.

The Department state that they administer the Road Transport Act 1932 and the Transport Act 1958 in a manner that is fair to both the State Companies and private operators. However the Department acknowledges that there is a need to replace the existing legislation with a modern system of licensing that provides for a level playing field and facilitates the optimum provision of public bus services. The Department state that the examination of applications for licences is centred on the issue of demand. Where the Department determines that existing services are not meeting demand, irrespective of whether they are being provided by the State Companies or not, the Department will grant a licence.

Blanchardstown example

Dublin Bus has highlighted current difficulties in reorganising their services in the Blanchardstown area due to the existence of a licensed service. In this case, the private licence is in place primarily to serve traffic between Blanchardstown and the Airport. The Dublin Bus network in Blanchardstown is primarily a radial set of services to the city centre.

We have reviewed correspondence between Dublin Bus and the Department of Transport in this case. We suggest that to assist the assessment process, Dublin Bus should supply detailed analysis supporting their changes dealing with a range of issues from customer service, including demand analysis, to cost and network efficiency. In the event that the existence of a licensed service prevents the complete redesign of the network as proposed by Dublin Bus, alternatives should be developed to achieve what improvements are possible.

Licensing assessment

The current licensing regime is characterised by an approach that is reactive rather than proactive. The licensing regime is for commercial bus operations – it is matter for bus operators to determine whether or not the introduction of a particular bus service will be commercial.

However, such licences do impact directly and indirectly on the PSO networks operated by Dublin bus and Bus Éireann.

The current licensing regime will be replaced in the proposed Public Transport Regulation Bill. The establishment of the Dublin Transport Authority is expected to improve matters in the Greater Dublin Area through a more coordinated approach to procuring public transport services.


5. Recommendations

Our report recommends a series of measures primarily aimed at creating a more effective and appropriate bus network for Dublin combined with a range of operational improvements for both Dublin and Provincial services. Our proposed measures build on the considerable investments made to date in bus fleets and related infrastructure and take into account the deteriorating financial position of both companies.

Both companies are currently implementing cost reduction programmes. We set out below additional comments and recommendations.

5.1 Dublin Bus recommendations

There is a clear opportunity to create a simplified bus network and schedule which is more reliable, easier for customers to understand and more cost effective to operate.

We recommend the development of a simpler and more efficient network with the following key principles:

Redesign network based on most recent pattern of demand/demographics.

Simplify the network and reduce the number of variations of bus routes.

Eliminate unnecessary duplication of services, maximising the return from deployed services.

Create even headways between departures and introduce intermediate running times to improve reliability and reduce the potential for ―bunching‖ of buses.

Provide additional direct routes into and out of the city/key places of employment/key retail centres.


Achieve enhanced Value for Money from service provision.

We recommend a number of actions to improve scheduling efficiency and effectiveness:

Redeploy ―Peak only‖ buses from Harristown (in context of network redesign.

Introduce intermediate timing points along routes.

Eliminate ‗out of service‘ running to facilitate driver breaks.

Eliminate routes operating to garages with no apparent customer demand.

The above programme of work represents fundamental change for the company. It should be treated as a major change and transformation programme. The correct sponsorship and resources will be required if this programme is to be successful.

These changes need to be made in a coordinated way and with the needs of the customer at the centre. It is an integrated set of recommendations. An ad hoc approach to picking certain elements and ignoring others is likely to be less successful.

Given the immediate financial difficulties facing the company, Dublin Bus is progressing with cost reduction initiatives. Our detailed analysis of the Finglas Corridor indicates that significant cost savings can be achieved following a strategic redesign of services across the whole network that enhances services for the majority of customers. It will take longer, and require modest investment to make such strategic changes, but in the long term these will yield better results and ultimately strengthen the financial state of the company.

We are of the view that a through review of the whole network, particularly along key corridors be undertaken so that the potential savings which the Finglas corridor case study has highlighted can be identified across the network and the consequential financial savings made.


5.2 Bus Éireann recommendations

The scope for significant cost savings in Bus Éireann is limited as the current network design and schedules are largely efficient.

Given the immediate financial difficulties facing the company, Bus Éireann is also progressing with a cost reduction programme. It is likely that some service reduction will be required to return the company to financial stability. Any service rationalisation should be carefully planned to ensure the entire integrated network is not undermined.

5.3 General recommendations

In addition to the specific comments set out above, we recommend the following:

Congestion

We recommend the acceleration of existing bus priority programmes, elimination of ―pinch points‖ and integration of AVL with Dublin‘s Traffic Management System. We support the introduction of the bus gate proposals at College Green. In addition we recommend that a study be carried out to assess the feasibility of all demand management schemes such as bus gates, increased parking charges and road user pricing to identify the best way to reduce congestion and increase the efficiency of bus transportation.

Ticketing

We recommend an increased move to cashless transactions. This requires a progressive refocusing of the fare structure which aims to increase single fares at a higher rate than pre-paid tickets, making the latter more attractive to users. This will reduce boarding times and engender loyalty to public transport amongst users. This may require full regulation or full deregulation of fares. The current situation whereby only cash fares are regulated shall be changed. A full smart card integrated ticketing system, with electronic purse capability, will significantly assist in implementing such a move.

Incentives should be in place to encourage the move away from cash fares. The introduction of ‗on street‘ ticket vending machines at key locations, similar to Luas stops, will further reduce bus dwell times.

Real Time Passenger Information (RTPI)

We believe that RTPI is an essential feature of a customer orientated bus service. For a relatively small capital investment, very significant improvements can be made to the customer experience. We recommend that this project be prioritised and that any regulatory obstacles are overcome at an early date

Licensing

The recently passed Dublin Transport Authority Act 2008 and a the proposed National Transport Authority Bill are a means to modernise the regime governing the regulation of the bus market through introducing public service contracts for PSO market and a more coherent approach to licensing.

PSO objectives

All parties will benefit from greater clarity around the policy and objectives of PSO payments. We understand that greater clarity will be achieved through the provisions of the Dublin Transport Authority Act 2008 which provide for a contract regime.


Fleet acquisition

We recommend the retention of the fleet replacement programme at both companies to maintain the current average age of the fleet with consequential advantages for the environment, maintenance, reliability, and passenger comfort.

All of our recommendations should be relatively inexpensive to implement as we do not call for major new capital investments. Rather we are recommending redesign work to optimise the use of major investments already made. We set out details of how our recommendations could be implemented below.

5.4 Action plan

The following key enablers are currently underway and should continue to be prioritised by the responsible agencies:

General action points for bus companies and stakeholders

Responsible Suggested due date

Quality Bus Corridors: Rollout of new schemes and measures to address pinch points agreed between bus companies, local authorities and quality bus network office.

QBN Project Office (Dublin City Council)

Ongoing

Automatic Vehicle Location Systems Bus Éireann and BAC 2009 Bus Éireann and 2010 Dublin

Bus

AVL integration with traffic management (light SCATS) to deliver bus priority.

Dublin City Council 2010

Demand Management / Feasibility study Department of Transport 2009

Cashless transactions and Integrated ticketing: Smart card integrated ticketing system, with electronic purse capability.

RPA / Integrated Ticketing Board

2010

Establish Dublin Transport Authority: Act passed in 2008 to set up Authority responsible for surface transport in Greater Dublin Area including the procurement of public transport infrastructure and services.

Department of Transport 2009

Fast track Real Time Passenger Information (RTPI)


Reform current licensing regime and regulation of fares


Give greater clarity around objectives behind PSO payments



The following are action points for Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann

Specific action points for Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann to progress Suggested due date

Cost Reduction Programmes Immediate

Dublin Bus

Corridor Redesign - Pilot

Jun 2009

Network Redesign – Entire network Jun 2009 – Dec 2010

Bus Éireann

Detailed cost benefit analysis of services along each corridor

Jun 2009

Consider alternative options as part of rationalisation process, including

Explore greater use of subcontracting

Explore synergies with RTP and HSE

Jun 2009

Implement Changes Jun 2009 – Dec 2010

Dublin Bus

The implementation of a full redesign of the Dublin Bus network will be a complex and challenging task which will involve many stakeholders – customers, staff, local authorities, key public agencies and private sector organisations.

Below we set out some key guidelines:

Obtain strong commitment from government and company management.

Develop a comprehensive list of stakeholders; assess their specific needs, issues and concerns.

Communicate appropriately, frequently and with accountability.

Allocate sufficient expertise and resources to do the work properly.

Establish and maintain a process by which change can be implemented.

Assess risk and mitigate appropriately.

We recommend that these changes be approached as a strategic programme of work and that suitable leadership, expertise and resources be assembled from the start.

Rollout of actual changes can be approached on a phased or incremental basis. This has the benefits of allowing the new design principles to be tried out on a pilot basis first so that customer reaction can be gauged and built into subsequent rollouts. We suggest the following phases:

Phase 1: Assemble the team, plan the programme of work and initial consultations

Phase 2: Design and implement a Pilot

Phase 3: Design and rollout out new services to remaining corridors

We estimate the initial phases 1 and 2 could be set up and implemented in a 6 month timeframe. We set out below an indication of the number of weeks required to implement a redesign of services on a given corridor. It assumes Department of Transport approval for the changes is received in a timely manner. To ensure this is achieved, we recommend Dublin Bus meet with the Department early on in the process to agree a general set of parameters to minimise contentious issues. An example of the steps and time required in redesigning services for a corridor are set out below. Work on a number of corridors could be carried out in parallel, subject to the availability of relevant personnel.


Week Action Notes

1 Decide on concept Need to clearly define network, service and quality parameters

2-3 Discuss and agree concept and key parameters within company. Design customer consultation literature. Brief all staff and take views on board

4 Consult customers and local authority officers. Issue first Press Release

Concentration on overview rather than detail of proposals

5 Present outline proposals to key interest groups including local authorities

Opportunity to develop sponsorship or alternatives

6 Modify concept (if necessary) on basis of comments received

7-10 Detailed design of services; Seek Department of Transport Approval

Ensuring compliance with frequency and simplicity parameters. Secondary or other services to satisfy PSO obligations as required

11 Make arrangements for customer care training; Agree and order signage; Specify and commission publicity

12 Second Press Release with initial network, publicity and quality details.

13 Finalise publicity

14 Issue network and route Guides Supported by a clear explanation of changes and telephone and internet support for customers

15 Undertake household promotional mailing With possible targeted money-off vouchers for initial period

16 Formal launch. Erect signage and information. Final press release for launch.


Dublin Bus operates services along fourteen radial routes:

Figure 5. 1: Dublin Bus - Main radial corridors



Appendix I

Finglas corridor case study

Introduction

Following our initial review of the Dublin Bus network and services, it was agreed with both Dublin Bus and the Department of Transport that an in-depth study would be carried out for one corridor with the following objectives;

Address apparent route complexity.

Address apparent route duplication.

Address apparent excess capacity.

Identify potential for enhancing services and identifying cost savings.

We studied the Finglas corridor in detail and developed a conceptual network redesign, details of which are set out below:

Current services

The majority of services in the Finglas area operate along the Finglas Road, the N2 (―the Finglas Corridor‖). Services along the Finglas corridor are made up of

Routes 40/A/B/C/D: Long established Finglas services operating from Parnell Square in the city.

Route 140: New Transport 21 route offering cross city service to Lesson Street with regular 10 minute all day frequency.

Service 40 city – Finglas (McKelvey Avenue)

This is one of five components of the 40 group. It is the most frequent with 72 departures from the City Centre on a weekday. Departure times vary with intervals of 15 minutes (37 times), 10 minutes (16 times), 20 minutes (12 times) as shown below. Appendix Table 1 shows the stage to stage movements for service 40. These represent the modelled two way flows between each stage based on an average weekday in April 20088. This shows that by far the bulk of the passenger demand is from the McKelvey Avenue to Finglas village including the Plunkett Avenue, Barry Road and Mellows Road section. Prime destination in the City Centre and local Finglas journeys account for around 25% of total passengers.

8 Monday 31 March to Friday 25 April, Monday to Friday only.


Total Parnell St.

7 7 Mountjoy Square

35 33 2 Dorset St. (North Circular Road)

94 78 4 11 Whitworth Rd. (Wigan Rd.)

81 63 4 9 5 Finglas Road (Harts Corner)

74 54 3 8 4 6 Finglas Rd. (Glasnevin Cemetery)

96 68 4 10 6 7 2 Finglas Rd. (Dublin Ind. Est.)

304 206 12 29 17 22 7 11 Finglas Rd. (Royal Oak)

417 256 15 37 21 28 9 13 39 Finglas Rd. (Ardmore Hotel)

659 380 22 54 31 41 13 20 57 40 Finglas Rd. (Corner Wellmount Rd.

1,871 1,019 58 145 84 111 35 53 154 108 102 McKelvey Avenue

3,638 2,163 123 303 169 216 66 97 250 148 102 Total

Appendix Table 1: Passenger movements, Service 40

Source: Dublin Bus ticket machine data

Service 40A city – Finglas (St. Margaret‟s Road)

This supplements the 40, but diverts at Finglas Village via Farnham Drive, St Helena‘s Road and Cardiffsbridge Road, before rejoining the 40 via Barry Avenue but terminating just short of McKelvey Avenue at St Margaret‘s Road. Intervals vary between 10 and 15 minutes for much of the day, with extended gaps where service 40C is operated instead. 59 journeys are operated.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

07:1

5

07:3

5

08:0

0

08:3

5

08:5

0

09:2

0

09:4

5

10:1

0

10:3

5

11:1

0

11:5

5

12:2

5

12:5

0

13:1

0

13:5

5

14:1

5

14:5

5

15:2

5

16:0

0

16:2

5

17:0

0

17:2

0

17:5

5

18:3

0

19:0

5

19:4

5

20:3

5

21:2

0

22:3

5

23:2

5

In

terval

(m

ins)

Appendix Figure A: Intervals between departures Service 40A Parnell Square



Passenger figures are summarised in Appendix Table 2. Total demand is about 78% of service 40 levels for 81% of the trips with 22% of passengers making local journeys in Finglas.

Total Parnell St.

3 3 Mountjoy Square









1,668 981 42 143 64 131 28 34 111 69 65 Finglas (St.Margaret's Road)

2,847 1,773 76 254 110 220 46 54 161 88 65 TOTAL

Appendix Table 2: Passenger movements, Service 40A


Service 40B city – Finglas (Toberburr)

The 40B provides 12 journeys each way (plus 5 Finglas-Toberburr shorts). It carries just 430 passengers per day, an average of 18 per journey. 140 passengers/day travel to/from the unique section from Lanesborough to Toberburr, 76 to/from the Jamestown Road area and the remainder (215) to points served by other 40 group services.

Total Parnell St.

0 0 Mountjoy Square









48 33 2 4 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 Finglas Village(Drake Inn)

12 7 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 Jamestown Rd. (Clune Rd.)

32 18 1 2 1 2 1 0 1 0 1 5 0 Jamestown Rd. (Sycamore Rd.)

32 18 1 2 1 2 1 0 1 0 1 5 0 0 Dubber Cross

12 7 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 Rockmount House

9 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Newtown House

6 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 The Ward Road

112 63 3 8 4 5 3 1 2 1 3 17 1 1 1 0 Toberburr

430 275 14 34 17 22 11 4 6 4 6 32 2 1 1 1 TOTAL

Appendix Table 3: Passenger movements, Service 40B



Service 40C city – Finglas (St. Margaret‟s Road)

The 40C is a diversion of Route 40A via Tolka Valley Road and St Helena‘s Road. Its unique sections account for 139 passengers/day (25% of the total). 12 journeys per day are provided with an average load of 23 passengers.

Total Parnell St.

1 1 Mountjoy Square







41 28 1 3 2 4 1 0 1 St. Helena‘s Road(Tolka Valley)

98 65 2 8 5 10 2 1 3 2 Cardiffsbridge Road

311 201 6 24 16 29 5 3 11 7 8 Finglas (St. Margaret‘s Road)

556 374 12 44 28 50 8 6 15 10 8 TOTAL

Appendix Table 4: Passenger movements, Service 40C


Service 40D city – Tyrrelstown

The 40D follows Route 40C from City to Cardiffsbridge Road before diverting to Tyrrelstown. There is a 10 minute peak frequency against the peak flow from the city in the morning and from Tyrrelstown in the afternoon to service demand to and from Ballycoolin Industrial Estate. 2-4 buses per hour are provided off peak, though not at consistent even intervals.

The 40D is the busiest of all the 40 group services. It has 44 journeys from Parnell Square compared to the 72 on Route 40, yet carries 11% more passengers. 12% of passengers travel to the common section with the 40C in Finglas, and 77% of passengers travel to/from the unique section beyond Finglas towards Tyrrelstown.

Total Parnell St.

3 3 Mountjoy Square







173 125 7 13 8 12 2 2 4 St. Helena‘s Road(Tolka Valley)

342 240 13 26 15 23 4 4 8 10 Cardiffsbridge Road

196 132 7 14 8 12 2 2 4 5 8 Cappagh Hospital

50 33 2 4 2 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 Cappagh Rd. (Cappoge Cottages)

63 42 2 4 3 4 1 1 1 2 3 1 0 Cappagh Rd. (North West Ind. Est

113 74 4 8 4 7 1 1 2 3 4 2 0 1 Cappagh Rd. (Rosemount Ind. Est.

621 401 21 43 24 38 7 7 13 16 24 11 3 3 10 B'Coolin Rd. (Ballycoolin Ind. E

587 369 20 39 22 35 6 6 12 15 22 10 2 3 10 16 Blanchardstown Corporate Pk.

1,497 926 49 99 56 88 15 15 30 37 56 25 6 7 24 39 24 Tyrrelstown

4,054 2,665 142 282 157 243 42 41 76 89 119 50 12 14 44 55 24 TOTAL

Appendix Table 5: Passenger movements – Service 40D



Service 140 city (Leeson Street) – Finglas (St. Margaret‟s Road)

The 140 is a relatively new service introduced to serve developing areas. The terminus is advertised as St Margaret‘s Road, but is actually Hampton Wood.

The 140 operates every 10 minutes during the day and every 20 minutes in the evening and on Sunday. It serves the developing area of Hampton Wood/Poppintree, and this accounts for 29% of its patronage, 13% more comes from the section it shares with the 83 and 45% from stops along Finglas Road, shared with the 40 group. 41% of passengers travel cross river in the city centre.

Total Wilton Terrace

2 2 Leeson St. (Pembroke St.)

11 4 8 Dawson Street

188 32 62 94 O' Connell Street

73 7 13 19 35 Western Way

65 6 11 17 30 2 Broadstone

266 22 43 65 117 9 11 Phibsboro Shopping Centre

172 12 24 37 66 5 6 21 Finglas Road (Harts Corner)

148 10 20 30 55 4 5 17 6 Finglas Rd. (Glasnevin Cemetery)

136 9 18 27 50 4 5 16 6 2 Finglas Rd. (Dublin Ind. Est.)

247 17 33 49 89 7 8 28 10 3 3 Finglas Rd. (Royal Oak)

370 25 48 72 131 10 12 41 15 4 5 7 Finglas Rd. (Ardmore Hotel)

442 29 56 85 153 11 15 48 18 5 6 8 7 Finglas Rd. (Opp. Finglas Village

274 17 34 52 93 7 9 29 11 3 4 5 4 6 Finglas Rd. (Mellowes Park)

214 14 26 40 72 5 7 23 8 2 3 4 3 4 3 St. Margaret‘s Road(McKelvey Road

568 35 69 104 188 14 18 59 22 6 7 10 9 11 7 6 Charlestown Avenue Extension

566 35 68 103 186 14 18 58 22 6 7 10 9 11 7 6 6 Jamestown Road (Hampton Wood Rd.

708 44 85 129 232 17 22 73 27 8 9 13 11 14 9 8 8 St. Margaret‘s Road

4,450 318 616 922 1,497 110 137 412 146 39 43 57 44 47 25 20 14 1TOTAL

Appendix Table 6: Passenger movements – Service 140


Summary of existing services

Current services may appear complex to customers due to the number of route variations and lack of fixed interval timetables.

The sole deviation of Route 40C from 40A is also served by the 40D. The 40B does not serve the main Finglas residential areas.

The introduction of Route 140, without adjusting the existing network in Finglas, has lead to significant excess capacity along the route. The following graphs, based on an average of the 20 weekdays in April 2008 show the total passengers by journey across the main part of the day.

Figure B shows the inbound journeys to the city, with some heavily loaded peak journeys, yet there are also some lightly loaded peak journeys. A similar situation occurs in the afternoon peak, Figure C, and we believe this represents buses running in pairs – in some cases as scheduled. Inter-peak journeys rarely carry more than 30 passengers, and the counter peak movements provided by the 40D are apparent. Figure D shows the scheduled departures from the City Centre on the 40 group showing how the interval, though commonly at 5 minutes, fluctuates between 0 and 10 minutes. The graph shows the derived actual frequency, taken from average waiting time information calculated using ticket machine data. This shows that for much of the day a 7-10 minute interval is delivered – instance of buses running in pairs are treated as one journey in these calculations.

The graphs exclude Route 140 services. The capacity of vehicles operating on the Finglas corridor is c.90 persons.


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0700

0720

0745

0800

0820

0850

0915

0940

1000

1035

1110

1140

1210

1245

1310

1340

1415

1445

1520

1545

1610

1640

1705

1730

1750

1820

1900

1945

2030

2110

2200

2245

2325

Passen

gers p

er J

ou

rn

ey .

Appendix Figure B: Passengers per journey 0700-2000 towards city


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

0700

0720

0740

0805

0835

0855

0915

0940

1010

1045

1120

1200

1235

1305

1340

1405

1435

1510

1540

1605

1635

1700

1720

1745

1805

1835

1905

1945

2030

2120

2200

Passen

gers p

er J

ou

rn

ey .

Appendix Figure C: Passengers per journey 0700-2000 from city



Appendix Figure D: Route 40/A/B/C/D scheduled terminus departures from city centre


Demographic analysis

The following maps show two key demographic indicators from the 2006 census, overlaid by the bus routes under review:

Population density

Car ownership

Figure E shows the population density, represented by the total persons per square kilometre. The red shaded areas have the highest density of population and include parts of Finglas West and Finglas South.

Figure F shows the percentage of households who do not have access to a car. Much of the Finglas area has low car ownership with almost half of households in Finglas South and Finglas West not having a car.

Areas of dense population and low car ownership have a high bus market potential and our design proposals focus on serving these. The maps relate back to 2006 and predate some of the development north of Finglas which has prompted expansion of services.


Appendix Figure E: Population density

Source: 2006 Census


Appendix Figure F: Households without a car

Source: 2006 Census


Conceptual design

We have developed a conceptual network design offering an opportunity to both enhance services for the majority of customers in Finglas, through greater service coordination and simplification, while also reducing the cost base of operating services along the Corridor for Dublin Bus. The design can be summarised as follows:

Two standard pattern Finglas to city centre services (South City terminus). City centre services reduced to two core routes, from the current six, with integrated timetables offering a combined 5 minute peak frequency and 7.5 minute off peak frequency.

Additional peak journeys providing two way flows to city centre and Tyrrelstown and a residual off peak service to areas unserved by the main routes. Ensuring peak demand is catered for, while services to Tyrrelstown are maintained.

A local Finglas service, ensuring access to Finglas village is maintained

Other minor changes to other Finglas services not using the Finglas corridor

Current service 140 in its role as serving new development beyond existing routes has developed new links but also has substantial overlap with the 40 group and the 83. In order to address this, whilst still serving the new developments we propose to revise service 140 (under the new number 40) to run from Hampton Wood via St. Margaret‘s Road, McKee Avenue, Jamestown Road, Finglas Main Street and the current route to Leeson Street.

The current 40 group would be combined into a single service (40A) from McKelvey Road via Plunkett Green, Barry Road, Cardiffsbridge Road, St Helena‘s Road, and Tolka Valley Road before following the new 40 to Leeson Street.

Route X40 would follow the current 40D route from Tyrrelstown, providing extra peak capacity over the 40A route through the St Helena‘s Road area before running non stop from Glasnevin Cemetery to Parnell Square and O‘Connell Street. Against the flow and off peak journeys to/from Tyrrelstown would serve all stops.

The X40 would allow the 40A to focus on passengers from the Plunkett Green area with the X40 helping to serve the St Helena‘s Road district. The X40 should attract a higher share of the passengers due to its faster route and this should ensure that the 40A has sufficient peak capacity to effectively serve Finglas Road.

Route 83 would be curtailed to run between Finglas Main Street and Kimmage via its current route.

The design would leave some areas currently served by the 40 group services without a direct service to the city along the Finglas corridor. However, alternatives will be available:

Charleston Avenue extension – which would be served by extending the 19/A to Lanesborough roundabout

Whitworth Road – reduced to service X40, but also served by Route 13

Links to Finglas centre from Barry Road, St Helena‘s Road which would be served by the new local service 240.

Details of the conceptual design follow below.


Service 40

New Route 40 would replace the 140 and parts of the 83 from Hampton Wood via St Margaret‘s Road, McKee Avenue, Jamestown Road, Main St, Finglas Road, Botanic Road, Phibsboro Road, Mountjoy Street, Parnell Square, O‘Connell Street, Kildare Street, Lower Leeson Street to Wilton Terrace offering the following frequencies.

10 minute service 06:30-10:00 using 12 peak vehicles with end to end running time of 41-56 minutes.

15 minute service 10:00-15:00 using 6.5 inter peak vehicles with end to end running time of 40-46 minutes.

10 minute service 15:00-18:30 using 12 peak vehicles with end to end running time of 49-56 minutes.

20 minute service 18:30-20:30 using 4.5 buses with 37-39 minutes running time.

30 minute service 20:30-23:30 using 3 buses with 35-36 minutes running time.

Saturday services would run every 15 minutes during the day, Sundays every 20 minutes with the evening pattern matching weekdays.

Service 40A

This would replace the 40 group and commence from McKelvey Road via the current 40/40A/40C route via Plunkett Green, Barry Road then as 40A/C/D via Cardiffsbridge Road, St Helena‘s Road and as 40C/D via Tolka Valley Road to Finglas Road from where the proposed new 40 Route would be followed to Leeson Street.

The timetable pattern would match that of the 40 above, with buses inter-timed on the common section into and out of the City. The PVR would be 11, reducing to 6.5 inter peak, 4.5 early evening and 3 late evening. Driver flexibility to operate both Route 40 and Route 40A is assumed.

Two morning journeys and two afternoon peak journeys would extend to Toberburr replacing the busiest journeys on Route 40B.

Service X40

This would commence at Tyrrelstown and follow the current 40D route via Ballycoolin Road, Cappagh Hospital, Cardiffsbridge Road, St Helena‘s Road, Tolka Valley Road, Finglas Road, Whitworth Road, Dorset Street, Parnell Square to O‘Connell Street. The service pattern would be:

Morning Peak: Every 12 minutes Tyrrelstown – City non stop from Glasnevin

Morning Peak: Every 12 minutes City-Tyrrelstown all stops

Inter Peak: Every 30 minutes Tyrrelstown-City all stops

Afternoon Peak: Every 15 minutes Tyrrelstown-City all stops

Afternoon Peak: Every 15 minutes City-Tyrrelstown non stop to Tolka Valley Road.

Evening: Every 45 minutes Tyrrelstown-City all stops

Seven peak vehicles would be required.

Service 83

As noted above the 83 would be replaced by the 40 in Charlestown and would be truncated to commence at Finglas Main Street, but otherwise would be unchanged to Kimmage.

A 15 minute daytime and 20 minute evening service would be provided, Peak hour running time would be 80-85 minutes depending on direction and time, inter-peak would be 64 minutes whilst evening services would take 51-53 minutes.

12 peak and 10 off peak vehicles would be required reducing to six in the evening.


Service 240

Service 240 to bridge the gaps created in the Finglas area by focusing the proposed 40A on direct links to the city centre.

The 240 would provide a single direction circular from Finglas Village via Main Street, Wellmount Road, Farnham Drive, St Helena‘s Road, Cardiffsbridge Road, Deanstown Road, Kilshane Road, Ratoath Road, Rathvilly Road, Cardiffsbridge Road, Mellowes Road, Barry Road, Barry Avenue, Plunkett Green, Plunkett Avenue, Casement Road, Finglas Road, Mellows Road to Main Street. A 20 minute service using one bus would be provided.

No Route Peak Inter Peak Early Eve Late Eve PVR9 I-PVR10

40 St. Margaret‘s Road – Leeson Street 10 15 20 30 12 6.5

40A McKelvey Road-Leeson Street 10 15 20 30 11 6.5

X40 Tyrrelstown-City 12/15 30 45 45 7 3

83 Kimmage-Finglas 15 15 20 20 12 10

240 Finglas Local Service 20 20 20 20 1 1

Total 43 27

Appendix Table 7: Summarises the proposed network, frequency and resources


Table 8 summarises the resources required compared to the current network. It includes one additional vehicle on service 19 to serve the Charleston Avenue extension. We have not drafted driver duties for the services; however we do not envisage buses running empty to/from Harristown simply for driver change-overs. If breaks are not possible in the City Centre we advocate use of a crew shuttle car to take drivers to/from their bus thereby reducing transfer costs substantially.

Current Proposed

Service PVR I-PVR Service PVR I-PVR

40/A/B/C/D 28 22 40/40A 23 13

83 13 13 X40 7 3

140 12 12 83 12 10

240 1 1

19 (Extra) 1 1

Contingency 2 2

Total 53 47 46 30

Appendix Table 8: Resource summary

Source: Dublin Bus Ticket machine data

9 PVR: Peak Vehicle Requirement (the highest number of vehicles in the peak period needed to operate the service)

10 I-PVR: Inter Peak Vehicle Requirement (the highest number of vehicles between the morning and evening peak

needed to operate the service)


Appendix Figure G: Existing services



Appendix Figure H: Conceptual design



Savings

We have discussed our conceptual design with Dublin Bus management. This version takes into account a number of changes suggested by the Company including extending journey times at certain times of the day and increasing the PVR to ensure enhanced reliability.

Cost

We have used a costing template provided by Dublin Bus to evaluate the operating costs of the proposals

We estimate total costs would fall by c.17%, assuming indirect costs do not change. This equates to c. €2.1m.

Revenue

The majority of passengers will benefit from a simplified and more frequent service while some passengers will experience a change such as having to walk further to access an enhanced service.

The successful launch of Route 140 demonstrates that customers respond to services that offer a direct alignment, fixed interval departures and a cross city terminus.

We modelled a range of revenue assumptions up to a worst case scenario of revenue falling by 15%. In all scenarios the results show a positive financial benefit for the company.

As mentioned above, there are many other options that could be considered while keeping to the key principles of simplification, de-duplication, even clockface departures and better customer service. We accept that any redesign will require a change in services and behaviour for customers. For example some customers will get an enhanced service at their customer locations while other customer may need to walk a little further to access the enhanced service.

Dublin Bus accept that there is some scope for reviewing the service pattern in the Finglas area and state that they have commenced a review of services taking account of the concepts in this report. Dublin Bus state it was their intention to make adjustments to the level of service in the area when the passenger trends start to stabilise, following the introduction of Route 140.

We understand that Dublin Bus has recently begun an internal review of services along the Finglas network.

Deloitte refers to one or more of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, a Swiss Verein, its member firms, and their respective subsidiaries and affiliates. Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu is an organization of member firms around the world devoted to excellence in providing professional services and advice, focused on client service through a global strategy executed locally in nearly 140 countries. With access to the deep intellectual capital of approximately 150,000 people worldwide, Deloitte delivers services in four professional areas—audit, tax, consulting, and financial advisory services—and serves more than 80 percent of the world‘s largest companies, as well as large national enterprises, public institutions, locally important clients, and successful, fast-growing global companies. Services are not provided by the Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Verein, and, for regulatory and other reasons, certain member firms do not provide services in all four professional areas. As a Swiss Verein (association), neither Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu nor any of its member firms has any liability for each other‘s acts or omissions. Each of the member firms is a separate and independent legal entity operating under the names ―Deloitte,‖ ―Deloitte & Touche,‖ ―Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu,‖ or other related names.

These materials and the information contained herein are provided by Deloitte & Touche and are intended to provide general information on a particular subject or subjects and are not an exhaustive treatment of such subject(s).

Accordingly, the information in these materials is not intended to constitute accounting, tax, legal, investment, consulting or other professional advice or services. The information is not intended to be relied upon as the sole basis for any decision which may affect you or your business. Before making any decision or taking any action that might affect your personal finances or business, you should consult a qualified professional adviser. These materials and the information contained therein are provided as is, and Deloitte & Touche makes no express or implied representations or warranties regarding these materials or the information contained therein. Without limiting the foregoing, Deloitte & Touche does not warrant that the materials or information contained therein will be error-free or will meet any particular criteria of performance or quality. Deloitte & Touche expressly disclaims all implied warranties, including, without limitation, warranties of merchantability, title, fitness for a particular purpose, non-infringement, compatibility, security and accuracy. Your use of these materials and information contained therein is at your own risk, and you assume full responsibility and risk of loss resulting from the use thereof. Deloitte & Touche will not be liable for any special, indirect, incidental, consequential or punitive damages or any other damages whatsoever, whether in an action of contract, statute, tort (including, without limitation, negligence) or otherwise, relating to the use of these materials or the information contained therein.

If any of the foregoing is not fully enforceable for any reason, the remainder shall nonetheless continue to apply.

© 2009 Deloitte & Touche. All rights reserved

Member of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu

Documents

of Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann Cost and Efficiency Reviewdttas.old.gov.ie/sites/default/files/publications... · 2 Dublin Bus & Bus Éireann Cost and Efficiency Review January 2009